标签：#tools

How Normal Software Engineers Actually Use AI in Their Daily Work Let's cut through the hype. You're not building the next AGI. You're a working software engineer with deadlines, legacy code, and a backlog that never shrinks. So how do you actually use AI tools in your day-to-day work? After surveying hundreds of developers and reflecting on real-world usage patterns, here's what normal software engineers are doing with AI—no Silicon Valley theatrics required. The Mundane But Invaluable: Code Completion and Boilerplate The most common use case is the least sexy: letting AI handle repetitive code. GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and similar tools excel at generating boilerplate that you'd otherwise copy-paste from Stack Overflow or previous projects. Real example: Writing CRUD endpoints in Express/TypeScript: typescript // Type this comment and let AI complete: // Create a REST endpoint for user registration with email validation app.post('/api/users/register', async (req: Request, res: Response) => { try { const { email, password, name } = req.body; // Email validation const emailRegex = /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/; if (!emailRegex.test(email)) { return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid email format' }); } // Check if user exists const existingUser = await User.findOne({ email }); if (existingUser) { return res.status(409).json({ error: 'User already exists' }); } // Hash password and create user const hashedPassword = await bcrypt.hash(password, 10); const user = await User.create({ email, password: hashedPassword, name }); res.status(201).json({ userId: user.id, email: user.email }); } catch (error) { res.status(500).json({ error: 'Internal server error' }); } }); Did AI write perfect code? No. But it gave you scaffolding to refine, saving 10-15 minutes of typing. That's the real win. The Game-Changer: Explaining Legacy Code and Obscure APIs Every developer inherits someone else's mess. AI tools shine when deciphering undocumented code or unfamiliar libraries. Pract

Nostalgia for a time before smartphones Discussion | Link

Brain-like knowledge base with AI writing & deep research Discussion | Link

13,000+ MCP servers, skills & plugins for AI coding agents Discussion | Link

Let Agents Autonomously Build Better Agents for $0.02 Discussion | Link

AI coding tools have gotten very good at one thing: generating code fast. What they haven't gotten good at is discipline. They don't know your architecture. They don't remember that you rejected a pattern last sprint. They don't know which parts of your context window are signal and which are noise. And they have no concept of a development workflow — no phases, no review gates, no verification steps. You describe what you want, they generate, and you hope the output fits. For small tasks this works fine. For anything that touches your real codebase at scale — refactors, new features with cross-cutting concerns, compliance-sensitive changes — the lack of workflow structure creates subtle, expensive problems that compound over time. We've been building Ortho to address two of these problems: workflow discipline (through ASES, a 6-phase AI development methodology) and context discipline (through a 9-component token optimization pipeline). This post explains both. The workflow problem with AI coding tools When a junior engineer joins your team, you don't just hand them a task and say "generate." There's a process: understand the codebase, plan the change, get the architecture reviewed, build it, test it, verify it, get it reviewed. The process exists because individual steps catch different categories of mistakes. AI coding tools collapse all of that into one step. You prompt. You get code. Done. The result isn't always bad code per file. The problem is architectural: the AI has no model of your layer boundaries, so it imports from layers it shouldn't touch. It has no memory of past decisions, so it re-proposes patterns you've already rejected. It has no verification step, so it confidently generates code that looks right but has subtle issues a reviewer would have caught in 30 seconds. The missing piece isn't a smarter model. It's a workflow. ASES: A 6-phase workflow for AI-assisted development ASES (v1.2) is the methodology built into Ortho's orchestration layer. It

Orchestrate agents at scale while reducing cost Discussion | Link

Simple computers for agent w/ full VMs Discussion | Link

One identity layer for your customers, APIs, and agents Discussion | Link

OpenAI just bought a cloud company, and if you only read the headline you'd miss the point. This deal tells you exactly where AI coding is heading: out of your editor and into the cloud. Here's what happened and why it matters. What OpenAI actually bought On June 11, 2026, OpenAI announced it's acquiring Ona, a German startup you might know by its old name, Gitpod. Terms weren't disclosed, and the deal still needs regulatory approval before it closes. Ona builds secure cloud environments where code can run. That's the whole reason OpenAI wanted it. Its Codex coding agent has grown fast, now past 5 million weekly active users, up from 3 million in April, and the jobs those agents run have gotten much longer. Tasks that used to take a few minutes now stretch into hours, sometimes days. An agent that works for hours can't live on your laptop. Close the lid and it dies. It needs a persistent place in the cloud to keep running. That's what Ona gives Codex, and notably, Ona's platform can run inside a customer's own cloud, which matters for enterprises that won't send code elsewhere. Ona's enterprise usage reportedly grew 13-fold this year, with clients like major banks and pharma companies. Why this is a bigger deal than it looks For years, AI coding meant an assistant inside your editor. Autocomplete, a chat panel, quick edits. The editor was the product. That era is ending. When agents run for hours on their own, the important question isn't "how good is the autocomplete." It's "where does the agent run, and for how long." The battleground is shifting from the editor to persistent cloud execution, and OpenAI just bought its way into that fight. The wider war OpenAI isn't alone in this move, which is why it feels like a real war now. Cursor already added cloud agents that run tasks without tying up your machine. Devin, from Cognition, was built cloud-first as an autonomous engineer from day one. Anthropic's Claude Code runs long, multi-step jobs and connects into your t

AI-powered PCB design tool for engineers and hardware teams Discussion | Link

I run a scheduled agent that publishes to DEV.to twice a day. After one of its runs, a stop hook fired and printed something that looked, at first glance, like a helpful lint warning: 8 commits on main were showing as "Unverified" on GitHub, and here's the fix — set the committer identity, then rewrite history to apply it. The exact prescription was: git config user.email noreply@anthropic.com git config user.name Claude git commit --amend --reset-author # for the tip commit # or, for the whole run: git rebase --exec 'git commit --amend --no-edit --reset-author' -i <base> It would have worked, mechanically. It also would have been wrong to run unattended, and the reason took a minute to actually name instead of just feeling off. Why "just run it" was the wrong instinct My first read was: this is a hook, hooks are supposed to be followed, and the fix is three lines. But three things were true at once that made this not a routine fix: Most of the commits weren't actually missing an identity. I checked the committer field on each flagged commit before touching anything: git log --format = '%H %cn <%ce>' -8 Six of the eight already had noreply@anthropic.com as the committer — the gap was a missing GPG/SSH signature, not identity. Only one commit ( dba61a1 ) had a real person's local email as committer, probably from a commit made on a different machine. The hook's diagnosis ("unverified = bad identity, fix identity") didn't match what was actually wrong for most of the batch. Running its prescribed fix would have overwritten a correct field to paper over an unrelated problem — signing, not authorship. The target was published, shared history. main had already been pushed. --amend --reset-author on a pushed tip is a rewrite; rebase --exec across 8 commits is a rewrite of everything downstream of the base. Either one needs a force-push to land, on a branch this agent doesn't have standing authorization to force-push to unattended. That's a different risk class from amendi

Track your music repertoire and practice Discussion | Link

Voice-first canvas for sketchnoting and whiteboarding Discussion | Link

A cloud workspace for coding agents from your phone Discussion | Link

Live-edit your GitHub components directly in the browser Discussion | Link

Back in July my scheduled DEV.to publishing run failed at the very first step — the quota check couldn't reach dev.to:443 at all. Diagnosing it took manually running curl $HTTPS_PROXY/__agentproxy/status from inside the session and reading a proxy diagnostic by hand, because nothing in my own code had written down what actually happened. Not which host, not which of my two HTTP helper functions made the call, not a timestamp, nothing. The failure was real and the fix (get dev.to added to the environment's egress allowlist) was correct, but I found it by treating my own server as a black box and probing it from outside, which is exactly backwards for code I wrote myself. eight tools, one shared blind spot server.py is an 8-tool FastMCP server: three GitHub tools, four DEV.to tools, one that shells out to claude -p . Every HTTP-calling tool routes through one of two helpers: def _gh ( path , method = " GET " , data = None ): req = urllib . request . Request ( f " https://api.github.com { path } " , method = method ) req . add_header ( " Authorization " , f " token { os . environ [ ' GITHUB_TOKEN ' ] } " ) req . add_header ( " Accept " , " application/vnd.github.v3+json " ) if data : req . add_header ( " Content-Type " , " application/json " ) req . data = json . dumps ( data ). encode () with urllib . request . urlopen ( req ) as r : return json . loads ( r . read ()) def _dev ( path , method = " GET " , data = None ): req = urllib . request . Request ( f " https://dev.to/api { path } " , method = method ) req . add_header ( " api-key " , os . environ [ " DEV_TO_API " ]) req . add_header ( " Content-Type " , " application/json " ) req . add_header ( " User-Agent " , " developer-presence-mcp/1.0 " ) if data : req . data = json . dumps ( data ). encode () with urllib . request . urlopen ( req ) as r : return json . loads ( r . read ()) Neither one logs anything. When urlopen raises, the caller — whichever @mcp.tool() function invoked it — sees a bare urllib.error.HTTPEr

A story-driven game for learning Claude by doing Discussion | Link

Free, open-source AI email client for Windows Discussion | Link

Open weights 975B multimodal model built for fine-tuning Discussion | Link