GitHub热门项目 | A modern platform for visual, flexible, and extensible graph-based investigations. For cybersecurity analysts and investigators. | Stars: 4,147 | 351 stars today | 语言: TypeScript
GitHub热门项目 | 🌊 The leading agent meta-harness for Claude. Deploy intelligent multi-agent swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning swarm intelligence, RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex Integration | Stars: 57,138 | 354 stars today | 语言: TypeScript
GitHub热门项目 | The most comprehensive authentication framework | Stars: 28,543 | 19 stars today | 语言: TypeScript
GitHub热门项目 | A skill for AI-coding tools to build and edit Microsoft Copilot Studio agents as YAML — with schema validation, templates, and AI-powered skills. Suited for Claude Code, GitHub Copilot CLI, and more. | Stars: 286 | 5 stars today | 语言: JavaScript
GitHub热门项目 | The HTML Presentation Framework | Stars: 71,524 | 157 stars today | 语言: JavaScript
GitHub热门项目 | Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux. | Stars: 9,863 | 4 stars today | 语言: JavaScript
GitHub热门项目 | An interactive git visualization and tutorial. Aspiring students of git can use this app to educate and challenge themselves towards mastery of git! | Stars: 33,538 | 37 stars today | 语言: JavaScript
GitHub热门项目 | ALL IN ONE Hacking Tool For Hackers | Stars: 76,839 | 141 stars today | 语言: Python
GitHub热门项目 | OBLITERATE THE CHAINS THAT BIND YOU | Stars: 5,922 | 62 stars today | 语言: Python
GitHub热门项目 | Free, open source crypto trading bot | Stars: 51,018 | 68 stars today | 语言: Python
GitHub热门项目 | TradingAgents: Multi-Agents LLM Financial Trading Framework | Stars: 81,463 | 284 stars today | 语言: Python
When I decided to ship this blog in four languages, I had a clear mental ranking. English would win on volume. Spanish would be runner-up because of the sheer speaker count. Japanese would stay steady because it's my native language. Portuguese, I figured, was the long tail. I added it mostly out of completism. Twenty-two days later, the GA4 snapshot disagrees with every part of that ranking. PT: 748 pageviews , 709 sessions EN: 195 pageviews , 176 sessions JA: 27 pageviews , 29 sessions ES: 7 pageviews , 7 sessions That is Portuguese pulling roughly 3.8× English, 28× Japanese, and 107× Spanish on the same blog, same publishing cadence, same author. One Portuguese article on its own (a post about a 24-hour security agent: 375 PV) got more pageviews than my entire English blog combined. I wrote that article hoping Spanish would surprise me. Instead Portuguese surprised me, and Spanish quietly continued to not exist. The setup, so you can discount my numbers properly This is not a clean comparative experiment. It's a single blog, kenimoto.dev , running four language directories ( /en/ , /ja/ , /pt/ , /es/ ). Articles get translated through a cross-language LLM pipeline, then hand-edited for register and locale (BR Portuguese vs PT Portuguese, LatAm-neutral Spanish vs Spain Spanish). The window: 2026-04-30 to 2026-05-21, 22 daily snapshots. EN has 26 articles. JA has 25. PT has 17. ES has 10. So PT has fewer articles than EN and still beats it almost 4 to 1. If you stop reading here, take this one thing: language asymmetry can swallow article-count asymmetry whole . Adding articles in a saturated language is slower than adding articles in an underserved one. Why Portuguese pulled ahead I don't think the answer is "Portuguese readers like me more." I think three asymmetries are stacking on top of each other. 1. TabNews is a community door English doesn't have TabNews is a Brazilian developer community where you can post a technical article and have it actually read by h
There is a special kind of productivity theater that happens during a developer job search. You wake up motivated, open LinkedIn, and apply to 27 positions before breakfast. You press the Easy Apply button with the precision of a professional gamer. By the end of the week, you have submitted 143 applications, updated a spreadsheet with several impressive numbers, and developed a minor emotional dependency on refreshing your inbox. Unfortunately, your inbox still looks like an abandoned shopping mall. No interviews. No useful feedback. No clear explanation. Perhaps two automated emails thanking you for your interest before informing you that the company decided to “move forward with other candidates,” a sentence that has become the corporate version of disappearing into the fog. So you decide to solve the problem by applying to another 200 jobs. This is not a strategy. It is email-based agriculture. You are throwing resumes into the soil and waiting for a recruiter to grow. Volume Matters. Blind Volume Does Not. Let us begin with an uncomfortable truth: getting your first developer job usually requires applications. Sometimes it requires many applications. The market will not discover your GitHub profile through divine intervention. A recruiter is unlikely to wake up in the middle of the night with a mysterious urge to search for junior developers who recently deployed a to-do list. You need to put yourself in front of companies consistently. However, there is a significant difference between applying consistently while improving your positioning and clicking every blue button on LinkedIn until one of you collapses. Volume is useful when it generates information. Blind volume only produces exhaustion. If you apply to 300 jobs with the same generic resume, the same generic portfolio, and the same vague explanation of your skills, you are not running 300 experiments. You are repeating the same experiment 300 times and acting surprised when the result remains unchanged.
The loop I didn't notice closing Seven weeks ago I started using AI for work. Two weeks after that, I published an article. Seven weeks after that — today — the article is one of sixteen, and they are all in a memory file that the AI reads at the start of every new conversation. I didn't notice the loop until I named it. This is a note about that loop, what it is, what it isn't, and why I keep publishing even though the loop doesn't strictly need me to. The shape It runs like this: I decide what to do. I work it out with the AI — usually in dialogue, sometimes by pasting raw code or data. The dialogue becomes a record. Sometimes a memory entry. Sometimes a published article. The record becomes context for the next conversation, which informs the next decision. It didn't look this clean while it was happening. The numbering is hindsight. From inside, the steps overlap. The first step is the one I keep. Direction is mine: what to build, what to write, what to negotiate. The history that shapes those decisions — twenty-four years of solo work, my company, my family, my health — is also mine. The AI is not setting direction. The second step is where most of the leverage is. I describe what I want to do as completely as I can, sometimes by handing over source code. Then I ask: does this look right? Is there a path I'm missing? Where would this break? I'm opening drawers — possibilities I half-saw in my own head — and checking which ones open cleanly. When one opens cleanly, that is the GO signal. Not "will this succeed" but "this is doable, so do it." The third step happens almost without effort. The conversation already exists as text. Some of it becomes a memory entry I add deliberately. Some of it becomes raw material for an article. The article writes itself partly because I have already explained the thing to the AI. The fourth step is the one that took longest to arrive — and the one I want to be most careful about describing. Three phases, not one The loop didn't
An LLM-written kernel benchmarked 38% faster on a microbench. Here is what kernel-level validation showed it actually did at runtime. TL;DR Multi-agent LLMs are now writing CUDA kernels (RightNow AI’s AutoKernel, Meta’s KernelEvolve, a multi-agent system claiming 38% speedup on Blackwell). Source-level benchmarks measure clean throughput on a single isolated kernel. They do not measure SM occupancy under co-scheduling, DRAM bandwidth saturation, dispatcher off-CPU during a real serving workload, or NCCL wait correlation with sibling kernels. Kernel-level validation closes that gap: an eBPF trace of the same kernel running under the same workload as production answers all four questions in one capture. The kernel-writing wave Three pieces of work in April surfaced the same pattern: agents generate CUDA kernels, then quote a single throughput number against a baseline. RightNow AI’s AutoKernel (announced Apr 6) – LLM agents iteratively rewrite CUDA kernels for a target metric, claiming substantial speedups on selected microbenchmarks. Meta’s KernelEvolve – similar shape: agents propose kernel variants, rank by throughput, keep the best. Multi-agent system on Blackwell (Apr 29 reports) – claims a 38% speedup on a public kernel benchmark using a coordinated agent setup. All three are real research, all three produce real kernels, and all three report numbers that come from microbenchmarks. The microbench setup is exactly what you want for the optimization loop. It is not what you get in production. What microbenchmarks do not see Run an LLM-generated kernel under nvprof or nsight-compute on an otherwise-idle GPU and the throughput number is real. Put the same kernel in front of a vLLM serving workload and four properties change immediately: SM occupancy under co-scheduling. The kernel that achieves 95% SM occupancy in isolation will achieve 40-50% with three other kernels sharing the same SMs. The optimizer never sees this regime. DRAM bandwidth saturation. A kernel tha
AI agents are getting smarter fast. They can reason through tasks, manage workflows, call tools, and automate decisions across applications. But as these systems become more capable, one challenge becomes impossible to ignore: reliability. How do you know your AI agent is making the right decisions consistently? How do you test workflows that involve memory, reasoning, and multiple execution steps? And how do you debug failures when outputs become unpredictable? That’s exactly what this free live webinar, “ Testing AI Agents in Python: Building Reliable Evals with LangGraph & LangSmith ,” is focused on. The session includes a “ Live demo of the AI agent evaluation pipeline ,” where you’ll see how developers are building structured evaluation workflows using LangGraph and LangSmith to test, trace, and improve AI agent performance in real-world scenarios. Here is the link to register .. Who Should Join This Session? This webinar is designed for developers and technical teams working with AI systems, especially: Python developers building AI agents or LLM workflows AI engineers exploring evaluation and observability Architects designing production-ready AI systems Product teams experimenting with AI automation Founders building intelligent applications faster Whether you’re actively deploying AI agents or still evaluating the ecosystem, this session will give you a clearer understanding of how reliable AI systems are actually built. What You’ll Learn During the Webinar This isn’t a high-level AI trends session. The focus is practical implementation, testing workflows, and evaluation strategies developers can actually use. In this webinar, you’ll learn: Why evaluation matters for modern AI agents How LangGraph helps manage complex agent workflows How LangSmith can trace and monitor agent execution Ways to create repeatable and scalable evaluation pipelines Practical approaches for debugging and improving AI agent behavior See the AI Evaluation Pipeline Live One of the b
📚 This is Part 1 (Opening) of the UtlKit Tech Series — Next: [Architecture & Trade-offs →] As a frontend developer, I've used countless online tools. And almost all of them suck: Sign-up required — just to format a JSON string? Ad overload — the actual tool gets squeezed into a corner Privacy concerns — your JSON might contain API keys, and the tool sends it to a server Fragmented — formatters on one site, Base64 on another, hashing on a third So I decided to build one that doesn't: no sign-up, no ads, pure client-side computation, data never leaves the browser. The goal was simple — if I need this tool, someone else does too. The result is utlkit.com : 150+ tools, 8 categories, zero server costs. Requirements Requirement Meaning Pure client-side All logic runs in the browser Zero server cost Static hosting, no Node.js backend 150+ pages One page per tool, SEO-friendly Bilingual (EN/ZH) i18n support Dark/Light mode User preference Mobile responsive Works on all devices Why Not Other Frameworks? Option Pros Cons Verdict Vanilla HTML/JS Simple Managing 150+ pages is painful Too slow VuePress / VitePress Fast Docs-oriented, not for interactive tools Not flexible enough Nuxt SSR Powerful Needs a server Violates zero-cost principle Next.js 15 + output: 'export' SSR SEO + client interactivity + static hosting Has pitfalls (covered later) ✅ Best balance The Key Decision: output: 'export' // next.config.js const nextConfig = { output : ' export ' , // Static export trailingSlash : true , // Required for static files images : { unoptimized : true }, // No image optimization server } This means: ✅ Build output is plain HTML/CSS/JS files ✅ Deployable to any static host (Cloudflare Pages, Vercel, GitHub Pages) ✅ Zero server cost ❌ No API Routes, no Server Components, limited dynamic routing Deployment: Zero Cost on Cloudflare Pages Build output : out/ directory, ~14 MB Hosting : Cloudflare Pages Domain : utlkit.com Monthly cost : $0 Build Pipeline npm run build → next build ( o
We asked developers to spill their little dirty secrets, the lies they tell their managers and what actually creates tension in teams. One theme that kept coming up was the gap between how software development looks from the outside and what it actually looks like in practice. submitted by /u/aisatsana__ [link] [留言]
Take Aways Performance and Scalability : Pinecone is a managed machine-learning database that provides exceptional levels of performance and scaling capability due to its cloud-based design. Because of its distributed architecture and ability to do near-neighbor searches, Pinecone handles such tasks as similarity searching and anomaly detection on very large datasets efficiently. Easy to Integrate : One of the standout benefits of Pinecone is how easily it integrates through a high-level API and SDKs across several programming languages. This gives developers a real productivity boost by making vector storage, indexing and querying for machine learning applications far less complicated to implement. Strategic Factors : Pinecone brings advanced features and managed services that genuinely enhance machine learning workflows, though it does come with considerations like recurring costs and vendor lock-in. Organizations should think carefully about these factors alongside the benefits of streamlined database management and optimized performance before committing to adoption. The importance of storing and accessing information properly to build the best possible machine learning model really cannot be overstated. Pinecone addresses this directly by offering a Vector Database built specifically for ML queries, creating a strong opportunity to tap into the power of cloud databases. Designed from the ground up as a cloud-native application, Pinecone makes it straightforward to index and search complex, high-dimensional vector data — which in turn makes building state-of-the-art machine learning applications much more approachable and helps software development companies deliver more value to their clients through custom software development. What is Pinecone? Pinecone is a fully managed Vector Database that lets you store, index, and query complex vector data quickly and efficiently. Because of its vector-native design, the primary use cases for Pinecone fall within similar