35,595 results · Most relevant
Kevin argues that very small environment details add up into an agent's ability to execute the business problem: a code interpreter task may need a Python package downloaded into a very specific module for the Python kernel to pick it up, and Rust binaries must be in the right location for the executor program to run.
Give your agent access to a sandbox or computer where it can run code automatically. When deploying production agents, ensure the code your agents write is sandboxed and contained within a container. Execute every task in a separate container so you don't increase the blast radius.
Nnenna Ndukwe explains that not every rule should be treated with the same level of severity — some rules are strong enough to block a merge, others are just good practice and not detrimental if they get through. A rule's severity level is determined by your engineering org: 'action required' status means the org decided it is high severity, but it doesn't have to be block-worthy, it just needs to be addressed. You can configure the Qodo portal so that any action-required or high-severity issue blocks the merge until it is fixed, and Qodo runs again to verify the fix.
Endorsed; no stated uncertainty.
The source explains disaggregation as splitting the workload to different worker nodes to prevent getting bound by compute or memory. The most common form is prefill-decode disaggregation, which creates two pools: a pre-fill pool running the pre-fill part of the workload and a decode pool running the decode part. With disaggregated pools you can scale pre-fill and decode independently, and neither part stalls the other. For a summarization use case, scale up the pre-fill pool so you're not blocked by compute, and scale down the decode pool to avoid wasting resources.
None significant.
The source explains that traditionally, KV cache worked by reserving physical memory to ensure enough room for all KV information from each request, which is inefficient because many memory blocks are reserved but never actually used. A paged KV cache instead provisions a whole virtual memory block and stores KV cache for each request wherever there is free space, similar to an OS or virtual machine. This reduces wasted space and allows serving three times more requests than without paging.
The 3x figure is the speaker's claim without stated measurement conditions.
The source explains speculative decoding as disaggregating based on model instead of on phase. A draft model — a smaller form of the full model that approximates its results, runs more quickly, and uses fewer resources — is run first to produce candidate tokens, which are then validated by running the verify stage on the full model. Because draft models are often fine-tuned or trained off the full model, their candidates are approximately right but not guaranteed correct. In the example, getting nine tokens required running the full model only three times instead of nine forward passes. If the draft model runs very quickly, its overhead is minimal and total time to get tokens is shortened.
The 9-tokens/3-passes example is flagged possible_numeric_error.
A local LLM tool will not provide real-time information unless you use a tool, so use the MCP protocol with a tool that gives you the functionality you need for real-time tasks. You can ask your AI coding tool to create an MCP server that does a specific functionality. But check the code of an MCP tool before using it — preferably with a tool that checks for malware and other issues instead of reading it manually; installing malicious MCP code gets you into trouble, and insecure MCP servers lead to command injection.
The speaker advises treating MCP servers and AI-generated code exactly like any other code project, because many have bugs, security bugs, and security issues — despite people treating them as unicorns or magic boxes nobody looks inside.
Dakkak argues that relying on a single vendor benchmark number (like 6x) leads to mismatched expectations because results vary case by case; he recommends benchmarking against your own inference stack, reproducing claims on the exact model version, and asking for the distribution of results rather than headline numbers.
Framed as advice from the speaker, not a proven rule.
Druid explains AI agent evaluation to customers using an intern analogy: a manager at a banking customer service center hires two summer interns with the same job description. Intern A contains 80% of conversations and escalates 20% to senior bankers, while Intern B contains 96% and escalates only 4%. Giving the full-time return offer to Intern B (the higher containment intern) is the wrong decision.
In the intern scenario, a customer authenticated at 7 a.m. on a mobile app asks what it would take to pay off a mortgage early. An AI agent can answer the math by pulling the balance and running the calculation, giving a complete response contained by every definition. But the question is a signal that the customer is rethinking their mortgage — a refinance opportunity and real revenue on the table. The bank writes a rule to answer the customer and then route the context to a senior banker, and that design handoff is part of Agent A's 20% escalation rate.
Each individual component in the framework is scored on three levels: 0 points if the component is missing or does not exist, 1 point if it can be observed and measured (not necessarily automatically — measuring by hand is equally good), and 2 points if it is managed, meaning it is tracked, observed, and analyzed over time, because everything is dynamic and what happened yesterday might be different today.
Fuad Ali explains that because agent experiments are exposed via skills and API, the agent can redeploy itself on the new PR and verify itself against a dataset of actual failure cases before notifying you or deciding it's worth human review.
Fuad Ali explains that harness-as-a-judge performs adaptive analysis using trace analysis to catch unknown unknowns you wouldn't have written a test case for.
Fuad Ali describes harness-as-a-judge as an approach where eval criteria emerge from the agent's trajectory rather than being pre-written, evaluating questions like whether the right tool was picked, arguments were valid, and context was grounded in handoffs.
In the second notebook, when creating the answer you add a tool alias so the model uses the Tavily search tool to find the answer on the internet instead of generating the answer itself — that's the difference from the first notebook. When the model responds, it makes a search tool call (e.g., a Tavily query) and receives URLs with titles and content for each URL. The notebook builds on notebook 1's imports, model configs, seed dataset, and sampler columns (question difficulty, question type).
A naive approach — running a loop a million times prompting an LLM for a product, review, and customer profile — leads to a lack of diversity, because after 10, 12, maybe 20 tries the model starts repeating itself. It also lacks correlations between features, multimodality, steerability, and validation/verification.
In Data Designer, data is generated column by column (columns are an abstraction for features). Sampler columns inject diversity — e.g., a difficulty sampler with easy/medium/difficult coding questions — and sub-samplers can map each difficulty level to a specific problem type. There are columns for text, structured data, code, and now images (multimodal).
When scaling up, the main thing to focus on is incrementalism — figuring out how to rebuild the graph without regenerating all of it. Design for incremental indexing first as a first class citizen; that's the only way you'll get to a point where you have to deal with the other scaling problems. You have to deal with the problem of re-syncing information long before you have to deal with the actual scaling problem of how to store it or how to compute across it all — the speaker's team fights with incremental rebuilding at Typedef when building at larger scale across a large data architecture.
endorsed
Yoni Michael recommends making the graph feel more like the model is using graph by adjusting the interface, and accounting for how the model is going to query the tool when designing its interface. As a concrete example, he says to return the results from the graph in the same form as ripgrep, because that's what the model has been trained on and knows how to handle. He also notes that if you call a tool 'search', the agent will basically always do multi-keyword search into it with no training.
Choose sources → to get a library of your own and a daily brief.