Also, let’s not forget. The developer is rarely the person pitching the feature, and is normally given the constraints and the PRD…

Soooo people can keep tiptapping on the keyboard, but eventually they need to open their mind to the possibility that “the old way” is actually dead.

Check it out: https://redact.cabreza.com

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47903209

Points: 8

# Comments: 8

I think people aren’t reading the system cards when they come out. They explicitly explain your workflow needs to change. They added more levels of effort and I see no mention of that in this post.

Did y’all forget Opus 4? That was not that long ago that Claude was essentially unusable then. We are peak wizardry right now and no one is talking positively. It’s all doom and gloom around here these days.

The technical debt problem is real, but as long as after a large session across 10-12 repos over a couple days, I can do a sweep for loose ends and kill dead code that we had for an old implementation. It’s less about building a piece, and more like building version 1 of a feature and then building version 2 a week later instead of 6 months later.

Command replaces that with a platform that maps to their real sites, real assets, and real operational constraints, so they can actually run the program, not just document it.

Consulting firms use it to deliver more engagements with the same team. Asset owners use it to keep the program alive between engagements, or run one themselves.

There was a big bug in the Voice MCP I was using that it would just talk to itself back and forth too.

I highly doubt they used AI to build the network…

It’s less about “challenge my thinking” and more about playing it out in long tail scenarios, thought exercises, mental models, and devils advocate.

Nice work!

This has forced me to not do anything extra or while I’m in there. Just focus on 1-3 critical features at a time.

I must remember to go back and clear out dead code, tighten up the repo, and make sure all the new services are following the standards of the rest of the codebase

I do really like the feel of this though, and it’s an awesome idea. Maybe tighten up some short circuiting tricks that may fall under “tells me the answer”

How could you possibly validate that without spending more time validating and interviewing than actually reviewing.

I understand it’s a balance because of all the shit PRs that come across maintainers desks, but this is not shit code from LLM days anymore. I think that code speaks for itself.

“Per your website you are an OpenClaw AI agent”. If you review the code, and you like what you see, then you go and see who wrote it. This reads more like, he is checking the person first, then the code. If it wasn’t an AI agent but was a human that was just using AI, what is the signal that they can “demonstrate understanding of the changes”? Is it how much they have contributed? Is it what they do as a job? Is this vetting of people or code?

There may be something bigger to the process of maintainers who could potentially not understand their own bias (AI or not).

Was there some unlock that happened to make it viable again?

I was an omnara user until that happened and then I switched to happy.engineering. It’s been okay, but I’m excited that omnara is back

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46916931

Points: 2

# Comments: 0