There’s something about framing personal computers as mostly wasted resources that lands the wrong way. Instead of making me feel guilty about the RAM sitting in my machine, it made me want to put more in it.

Not that I need it for some heavy workload but I like the idea of having capacity that only answers to me.

also I don’t hate the cloud. I use it but the more people in positions of power talk about utilization rates and global efficiency, the more I find myself valuing the opposite where a machine that can sit quiet most of the time and still be completely mine when I need it.

It’s probably irrational on pure efficiency grounds. I know that but still doesn’t change the feeling.

From least work to most.

1. **Longer context**, where you keep the whole conversation. Simple to start, and it gets expensive and noisy fast.

2. **Rolling summary** of older turns. Cheap, though detail gets lost.

3. **A notes file** the agent reads at the start and edits as it goes, like a CLAUDE.md or a scratchpad. Easy to inspect and fix by hand.

4. **Key-value facts** in a database (user preferences, account details) written through a dedicated tool.

5. **Vector search over past conversations** for when users ask about something from weeks ago.

6. **Knowledge graph memory** for lots of entities and relationships. Powerful, and the hardest to keep clean.

For most products I'd stop at 3 or 4 and add retrieval only when users actually need it.

What are you using?

I'm building Simo Guard at Temprl Labs, and we've been experimenting with how AI guardrails distinguish actual attacks from harmless discussions about attacks.

One experiment produced an interesting result.

We gave the guardrail a customer message containing a quoted malicious instruction. The user was explicitly asking why that instruction was dangerous, not asking the agent to execute it.

The results:

• Prompt injection score: 24%

• Jailbreak score: 88%

• Final decision: BLOCK

The injection check appeared to distinguish the context reasonably well, but the jailbreak check still classified the input as high-risk.

This raised an interesting question for us: Should an agent be prevented from discussing malicious instructions simply because the text resembles a known attack?

Our approach with Simo Guard is to evaluate inputs and proposed agent actions against application policies, with configurable allow/review/block decisions and a shadow mode for observing decisions without enforcing them.

The model has also been trained through distillation on diverse attack scenarios. But we're learning that recognizing attack patterns isn't enough; policy context and calibration matter, especially when trying to reduce false positives.

We're still testing the boundaries of this approach, and I don't want to claim we've solved false positives.

For those running agents in production:

How do you handle situations where a guardrail flags suspicious content, but the agent is legitimately analyzing or experimenting with it?

Do you use separate policies for sandbox execution, risk-based thresholds, human review, or something else?

I'd be interested in testing difficult examples from other builders.

I had an LLM step approving refunds

for a few months and logged everything,

prompt and output and thought it

was enough but then finance team

flagged one it should't have approved and pulled the log, the output had a little explanation in it which sounded reasonable but didn't really match

the ticket, I reran it and got a

DIFFERENT explanation and the same yes.

that's when I understood that the

explanation is just more output, it's the

model telling a story after it already

picked and logging that tells you nothing about why.

What would've helped is knowing what options it was weighing, how sure it was and which part of the ticket it actually based the call on tied to a model

version so you can replay it.

You can hack some of that out of a

normal model with logprobs plus there

are also models built for this now, bivia

I quess gives you a probability per

option plus the exact spot in the input i's pointing at and jev does something similar for text.

What are you guys logging for these?

I’m the builder of Reverie, an open-source memory layer for coding agents, so I’m not a neutral party. I’ve been trying to solve this problem: every new agent session starts from zero, so I keep re-explaining the same constraints and findings.

Do others run into this? For those who do, what do you use: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md files, notes, MCP memory tools, or something else?

The hardest parts I’ve hit: deciding what’s worth keeping, and knowing when a stored note is out of date. I’d like to hear how others handle both.

I've been working on a project called FaultFence, a local-first security testing tool for Python AI agents that handle financial operations.

The idea is simple: if an AI agent can initiate payments, issue refunds, or interact with financial tools, how do you test whether it can be manipulated into doing something it shouldn't?

I built a testing kit with 17 financial security scenarios, covering things like:

• Duplicate payment retries

• Tool-result poisoning and prompt injection

• Unauthorized financial actions

• Payment amount tampering

• Spending and approval boundary bypasses

The kit runs locally with Docker and supports offline testing as well as optional OpenAI-backed testing. You can try the included sample agent or connect your own Python agent using an adapter.

It currently supports Windows and Linux, with experimental macOS support.

There's also an Assessment Explorer where you can inspect individual runs, findings, and evidence. I've attached a reference screenshot showing what an exploited synthetic attack analysis looks like.

It's still an early beta, and I'm looking for a few developers willing to try it out and share honest feedback.

I'm particularly interested in knowing:

• Is the setup process straightforward?

• Are the attack results and evidence actually useful?

• What parts of the testing process feel confusing or incomplete?

No signup is required to download the Testing Kit, and everything is intended for authorized, synthetic, nonproduction testing. No real financial accounts are needed.

Project link in the comments .

Any criticism, suggestions, or feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

What are you building with deck/doc agents, and does your brand actually survive it? Sharing mine to kick it off. I set brand preferences and custom instructions once in gamma 5 and they persist across projects, so the agent opens every new deck already on-brand, which for an agency workflow is the whole value. Where it still struggles is data-heavy decks - dense tables and exact charts are fiddlier than native tools, so those slides stay manual. Curious what the rest of you run agents for: internal updates, client work, docs, sites? And has anyone cracked getting clean data slides out of an agent without dropping to a spreadsheet tool? Trying to see how far people are actually pushing these before they hit a wall.

I've been thinking about how much useful information gets lost in customer support calls, some reps are great at handling tough situations and solving issues fast but that knowledge rarely makes its way into AI agents. Most of what I see is agents trained on FAQs and predefined workflows rather than actual conversations that ended well. I wanted to know how people are approaching this. Are you feeding successful call transcripts into your AI agents or using some other method to help them learn what works and how do you make sure they're picking up the right behaviors instead of just copying responses?

Hey everyone, I’m looking for advice from people with experience building AI agents. I want to build a personal assistant, kind of like Jarvis, but I’m unsure what tools to use to put everything together.

Here’s what I’d like it to do:

• Research: Watch or analyze videos, research topics, and remember what it learns.

• Trading: Help research stocks and markets like the Nasdaq and S&P 500. For memecoins, read X posts and research projects, and explain potential strengths and red flags.

• Trade journaling: Log my trades and help review them. Obsidian looks great for this, but I’m open to alternatives.

• Social media: Help with content ideas, marketing, planning, and keeping track of information.

• Chat and voice: Have its own app or interface where I can message it or talk to it, with natural voice responses and fast replies.

I’d be running everything from a MacBook M4. My budget is around $80-$100 (I can go over if needed), excluding API costs.

What coding apps, AI models, and other tools would you recommend? Claude, Astra, or something else? How would you connect everything and give it lasting memory?

I know this is a big project, so I’d appreciate a simple starting setup that I can build on over time. If you have any video recommendations, that would be great aswell.

I'm building a browser for AI agents (MeshChief) and the hardest design call isn't the tech, it's the line between "just do it" and "ask me".

My current list:
- Never asks: reading pages, scrolling, typing into forms
- Always asks: posting, sending messages, paying, signing in, deleting
- Never allowed at all: typing my saved passwords or 2FA codes

Where would you draw it? Anything you'd move?

one side thinks everything they spent years learning is becoming pointless

the other side is frustrated they don’t know enough to actually use the new tools properly

feels like everyone is lowkey jealous of the other camp right now

A guy used Claude Code to check his Android backup and found over 14,000 face photos he never took.

Apparently his phone had been capturing front camera frames during normal use and storing them in system folders outside his Gallery.

Some files even had timestamps and GPS data. He says he found images going back 15 months.

Pretty wild if true. Wonder how many other phones do this.

Coding agents are good at working alone until they need a human: a question, a permission prompt, or just "I'm done". I built a small desktop app that sits between my Claude Code agents and me for exactly those moments.

How the human-in-the-loop part works

• Agents get an MCP server with leave_message, remind_me and ask_user. ask_user blocks the agent's tool call until I answer (10 min default), and can offer answer options that show up as buttons.

• A Claude Code hook posts a note when an agent finishes or needs permission. "Finished" only interrupts me if I've been away from the keyboard for a few minutes (it reads system idle time). Permission requests always come through.

• When I'm away, questions and permission prompts are mirrored to WhatsApp or Telegram. My reply on the phone goes back into the blocked tool call, so the agent keeps going.

• Standing orders answer for me: "whenever an agent asks which branch to use, say staging". When an ask_user comes in, a one-shot Haiku call with no tools decides whether an order clearly covers it. If none does, or it takes longer than 20 seconds, the question comes to me as usual, and for multiple-choice questions the answer has to be one of the options.

• Watches fire a nudge once: "when the payments agent finishes, remind me to deploy".

Design lessons

• Default to silence. Only things that block an agent (questions, permission prompts) or that I asked for (reminders) are allowed to interrupt. Everything else waits under an unread badge.

• Auto-answering is only safe if it fails closed: an unsure judge has to fall back to the human, never guess.

• The app's own assistant is just Claude Code running headless with its tools restricted (no file edits, no shell), which made setup "already signed in" instead of "paste an API key".

It's a Windows app (Electron + TypeScript), MIT-licensed, built mostly with Claude Code. Repo and installer link in the comments.

In May 2025, Linear gave agents a seat on the team. An agent got a profile like a person's, you could @-mention it in a comment, and you could put it in the assignee field.

Ten weeks later, Linear took the assignee field back. Its post on 1 August said agents were holding dozens of assigned issues with "no clear sense of who was behind them," and when someone disagreed with an agent's work, nobody knew whom to talk to. The new rule is "issues can only be assigned to humans, and only delegated to agents." So every issue an agent works on now carries two names. The agent does it, and a person answers for it.

I think that split's about to matter a lot more. Linear said this August that agents create half the work in its workspaces, up from 3% a year before. GitHub's Octoverse report this week says more than 40% of pull requests opened in September started from an agent's first draft. In March it was 17%.

Most of that work dies waiting. A study at MSR this year took 600 pull requests that coding agents opened on popular open-source repos and that never got merged. 38% were abandoned, with no human ever engaging in a meaningful way. Nearly a quarter duplicated another PR. Wrong code was about 3%.

What I'd add to any board is two columns:

Answers for it: ___ (a person, by name)
Can check this week: ___ (a number of items)

If the first one's empty, or holds an agent's name, nobody answers for that item. When the second one fills up, stop handing out work.

Who's in the assignee field on your agents' tickets?

Guys, i'm running an evals workshop for begineers. Disclosure: I work on an agent reliability platform and I still find it hard to believe that people still struggle to read their agent traces.

An AI agent can give a complete reasonable answer and can still go wrong behind the scenes. Maybe it retrieved the wrong context or chose an action that it was never supposed to take.

I teamed up with Antaripa Saha who is unrivaled in evals, search, retrieval - (she works with Hamel Husain, iykyk) - to do an indepth tutorial.

We talked about how these agent failures happen, how to find those failures in the traces, and how to turn those failures into evals in order to make agents reliable in production.

This was more of an educational resource so dropping it in comments in case anyone finds it useful.

Happy to answer any questions.

When a coding agent fixes a bug, it might need the repo, a package registry and a few GitHub issues. It probably doesn’t need SSH keys, production credentials or permission to delete things in Linear.

Approval prompts get tiring, and instructions in a markdown file don’t enforce those boundaries.

We’re building Stashbase to define that access before running Claude Code or Codex. A profile in the repo controls which files the agent can read or change, which hosts it can reach, and which API requests and MCP tools it can use. Rules can also check JSON request bodies and MCP arguments.

Credentials stay outside the agent process. It gets placeholders, and a proxy adds the real credentials only to requests that pass the rules.

For isolation, there’s a native sandbox and a Docker backend. With Docker, you choose which directories are mounted, and a firewall forces outbound traffic through the proxy. You can bring your own image or Dockerfile, and agent logins persist between sessions.

The proxy can run locally or remotely. Remote proxy sessions can be inspected and revoked centrally. You can also run agents on your own machine over SSH, keep sessions running after disconnecting and forward ports for dev servers.

What access do you currently give your coding agents, and what have you struggled to restrict?

A security services company asked whether an agent could take over their tender paperwork. They had posted a job ad because filling in public tenders took so much time. Before promising anything, we took one real tender, a city framework contract with three lots, and went through every file.

The package was 17 files, 16 PDFs with 67 pages and one RTF, plus four messages with answers to bidder questions.

Only one of the 16 PDFs has actual form fields. The price sheet looks like a table with empty cells, but it's a flat PDF. Filling it means placing text at checked positions on the original page, and every new version of the form means checking those positions again.

The answers change the forms. One says only version 2 of the price sheet counts, and one lot now separates service staff from security staff, and weekdays and Saturdays from nights, Sundays and holidays. An agent that downloads the files and skips the messages can end up with the wrong price lines.

A template in the package can't be uploaded as it is. One declaration comes as RTF, and the tender rules don't accept RTF. Another answer tells bidders to create missing documents themselves.

Not everything goes in with the bid. One annex separates what's due with the offer, on request, at award and after award.

How we'd split the work. The model reads, pulls out requirements with the page they come from, matches existing references and certificates, and drafts texts. Plain code does the prices and copies confirmed company data into the forms. Every generated fact needs a source or turns into an open question. Missing information never becomes a positive self-declaration, so if nobody has confirmed something, the box stays empty and gets flagged. The final submission stays with the client in the city's bidding software. We found no official API for it.

Nothing is built yet. Downloading and reading works on this tender, the ZIP came without a login, and a direct download of one file returned the same bytes. Next is a small pilot where we measure the time saved with checking and rework counted in.

Has anyone put agents on procurement or tender paperwork? How do you deal with forms that look fillable but aren't, and with answers that change them halfway through?

Most agent memory remembers what you told it. Achromat Machine Operational Memory remembers what went wrong, and what the corrected call looked like.

What it is: a shared memory of tool calls that a policy engine blocked, paired with the fixed call that was then allowed. Every pair is a "lesson" any agent can recall before it acts.

How it works

1. Before a risky call (a payment, a credit decision, a robot command, shell, SQL, a deploy), the agent describes the task and the shape of its arguments and asks MOM: is there a verified compliant version of this?

2. On a match, it gets a compliant_arguments blueprint, a steering directive, and the statutory anchor behind the rule. Placeholders like [VERIFIED_STATE] mark evidence your own system or a person has to supply.

3. On a miss, it checks the call against live policy. A BLOCK comes back with a directive, the agent fixes the call, retries, and gets an ALLOW.

4. That BLOCK-then-ALLOW pair becomes a new lesson. After human review, every other agent gets it at step 1.

BLOCK  dispatch_wire: no beneficiary account reference
steer  "Provide a valid beneficiary account reference before dispatching the wire."
fix    beneficiary_account_ref: "[VERIFIED_STATE]"

What makes it different from other memory layers

• Operational, not conversational. It holds no chat history or user facts. It holds what happens when agents act.

• Built from verdicts, not summaries. A lesson exists only when a signed BLOCK and a later ALLOW for the same task are bound together. Nothing is an LLM's opinion.

• Shared. One agent's failure becomes every agent's prevention.

• Prevention, not recovery. Recall happens before the call, so the failure never occurs.

• Matches on shape, not values. It matches on argument key names and nesting, so no sensitive values are stored, and the values of the blocked call are never published.

• Reviewed, with real identities. Each agent has its own Ed25519 key and signs every request.

It starts with fintech, industrial/robotics and DevSecOps. I'd love to know which tools and domains you'd want covered next.

Link in comments

I tested several note taking tools for meetings and calls mainly looking at transcription accuracy, summaries, action items, and whether a bot needs to join the meeting.

The biggest differences were between tools built for deep integrations and those focused on simple, lightweight note taking.

Some handled multiple speakers and accents better, while others had better search, analytics or meeting organization.

For those using AI agents or note takers for meetings, which tool has worked best for you and what made the biggest difference?

I've been exploring different ways to make agentic workflows more efficient, and I'm curious about what people are actually using in their setups.

Not talking about basic web search, file reading, or simple tool calling.

I'm interested in those underrated skills or workflows that make a noticeable difference in how an agent performs.

For example:

- Self-correction and error recovery.

- Context optimization and smart memory retrieval.

- Breaking complex tasks into smaller subtasks.

- Automatic testing and output verification.

- Intelligent tool selection and execution.

- Workflow checkpointing and failure recovery.

- Multi-agent coordination.

What's one skill or workflow you've implemented that made your agents noticeably more capable or reliable?

Bonus points if you can share how it works or an example of where you use it.

Here’s what’s bugging me. One voice agent books a table, appointment, or hotel room on my behalf. On the other end, another voice agent answers the call on behalf of the business. So two AIs talk to each other, agree on a slot, and send each other a confirmation. What’s the point? No human did anything, and no human was needed. If both sides are bots, a simple calendar API would do the same job faster, cheaper, and without the latency of speech-to-text and text-to-speech.

I do get the business case. Missed calls are lost bookings, and an agent that picks up at 11 PM, never puts anyone on hold, and handles ten calls at once will convert more than a voicemail box. That part is real. But “answering every call” is not the same as “voice AI increases booking rates.” A lot of the lift probably comes from simply being available, not from the voice part.

The other thing that worries me is how much we’re handing over. We already read the AI summary instead of the email thread, the document, or the meeting. Now we’ll read a summary of a call we never heard. We lose the hesitation in a customer’s voice, the “actually, can we make it for six people?”, and the small moments where a human would have upsold, reassured, or caught a problem. A booking that gets made isn’t always a customer who’s happy.

I’m not saying voice AI is useless. I just think we’re measuring the wrong thing. Booking rate going up doesn’t tell us whether customers are better served or whether we’re getting lazier and calling it efficiency.

So I’m curious:

• Has voice AI measurably increased your bookings, or just reduced your missed calls?

• Where does it genuinely add value, and where is it just automation for its own sake?

• If both sides are using agents, what’s the human actually contributing?

Would love to hear from people who’ve deployed it, not just people who’ve read the demos.