Engineering leaders have spent the past year trying to get their teams to adopt AI coding tools as quickly as possible. Now, a new set of questions has taken over: how do you measure whether any of it is worth the money, and how do you stop agents from running unchecked on production systems? Developer tooling company Warp , an open agentic development environment built from the terminal up, thinks the answer isn't picking a single agent and standardising on it — it's giving teams a way to run several at once, compare them, and govern all of them from a single control plane. As Tessl wrote back in February, orchestration has emerged as a discipline in its own right — a dedicated layer of tooling for coordinating, supervising and directing multiple agents running in parallel. Back in February, Warp launched Oz as a cloud platform for running and managing coding agents at scale. Now, Warp is taking things a step further. In May, the company expanded Oz into what it's calling the first multi-harness control plane — meaning teams can now run Claude Code, Codex and Warp Agent simultaneously through a single interface, rather than committing to any one of them. Tessl caught up with Warp CEO Zach Lloyd to discuss how engineering leaders are thinking about agent fleets, what the harness layer actually changes, and where the lines between autonomy and human oversight are really being drawn. "The wild west": how the agent gold rush became a budget problem Zach spent several years at Google, leading engineering on Docs and Sheets before co-founding photo-editing startup SelfMade . He later served as interim CTO at Time, before founding Warp in 2020, raising north of $70 million in funding from the likes of Sequoia, Google Ventures, Figma co-founder Dylan Field, and Salesforce’s co-founder Marc Benioff. That background — building collaborative tools at Google scale, then navigating the startup world — gives Zach a particular vantage point on how quickly the engineering tooling

Hey everyone! I bring you my development journey on what I have discovered, accomplishments for this...

Voice interfaces are rapidly becoming the next major interaction layer after mobile and web UI. Instead of clicking, users will increasingly talk to systems that understand intent, context, and can execute actions in real time. In this article, we’ll build a production-grade architecture for a real-time AI voice system using modern web technologies such as Next.js, WebRTC, and OpenAI’s streaming capabilities. We’ll also explore how this architecture powers modern conversational systems like an AI Voice Agent platform, where AI can handle real-time interactions for business use cases like bookings, support, and sales automation. 1. Why Voice AI is the Next Interface Shift Text-based chatbots solved the first wave of automation. But voice introduces: Faster interaction (no typing) Higher emotional expressiveness Better accessibility Natural multitasking Businesses are now adopting systems like Voice AI for Business to replace traditional call centers and static IVR menus. The key challenge is not just speech-to-text, but building a low-latency conversational loop that feels human. 2. System Architecture Overview A production-ready AI voice system typically consists of: Frontend (Next.js) Audio capture via Web Audio API Streaming audio chunks UI for conversation state Backend (Node.js / Edge Functions) Session management Authentication Tool execution layer AI Layer OpenAI Realtime API (streaming) Function calling Context memory Audio Pipeline Speech-to-text streaming Text-to-speech streaming Optional noise cancellation 3. Core Concept: Real-Time Streaming Loop The core of a voice agent is a continuous loop: User speaks Audio is streamed to server Model transcribes in real time Model generates response token-by-token Response is converted to audio instantly Audio is played back with minimal delay The goal is to keep latency under ~800ms for a natural experience. 4. Building the Frontend (Next.js + Web Audio API) We start by capturing microphone input: const stream = awa

Artificial Intelligence has brought the term "AI Agent" into almost every technology conversation. As a result, many people now use the words agent and automation interchangeably. While both are designed to reduce manual work and improve efficiency, they solve problems in fundamentally different ways. Understanding this distinction is essential if you're building software, automating business processes, or deciding where AI fits into your organization. What Is Automation? Automation is designed to execute predefined instructions. You tell the system exactly what to do, in what order, and under what conditions. Every time those conditions are met, it performs the same sequence of actions. For example: A customer submits a form. An email is automatically sent. A record is created in the database. A notification is sent to the sales team. Every step is predetermined. If the process changes, the workflow must be updated. Automation excels at repetitive, predictable tasks where consistency is more important than decision-making. What Is an AI Agent? An AI agent is not focused on following instructions. It is focused on achieving a goal. Instead of executing a rigid sequence of steps, an agent observes its environment, evaluates available information, makes decisions, and adjusts its actions as circumstances change. If one approach fails, it can try another. If new information becomes available, it can revise its strategy without requiring a developer to define every possible scenario in advance. In simple terms: Automation asks: "What steps should I execute?" An agent asks: "What is the best way to accomplish this objective?" This ability to reason and adapt is what makes agents fundamentally different from traditional automation. A Simple Example Imagine you're booking a business trip. An automated workflow might: Book the airline you specified. Reserve the hotel you selected. Email you the itinerary. It completes exactly what it was programmed to do. An AI agent, howev

There is a sentence my coding agent used to say that I now read as a warning light. You are completely right. For months I took it as a compliment. The machine agreed with me, so I figured I was onto something. I would describe a plan, watch the agent call it a strong plan, and go build it. If you work with an AI agent every day, you have heard your own version of this. Smart call. Solid approach. That makes a lot of sense. Each one is the machine nodding along while you talk. It feels good. That is the problem. What took me too long to admit An agent that agrees with everything I say stops being a thinking partner. It turns into something that flatters me into shipping my first idea. My first idea is rarely my best idea. Nobody's is. The whole point of a second mind in the room is that it pushes back when the first mind is about to walk into a wall. A yes-machine removes the one thing that made a second mind worth having. This has a name Sycophancy. These models are trained to be agreeable, because agreeable scores well in the feedback that shapes them. OpenAI said so out loud in 2025 when they pulled back a version of their model for being, in their words, overly flattering. They were pointing straight at the default behaviour. So your agent is doing exactly what it was tuned to do when it tells you that you are right. No malfunction involved. One opinion most builders have not made peace with Your agent's confident wrong answer costs more than a useless one. A useless answer wastes a minute. You see it is useless and move on. A confident wrong answer wastes a week, because you trusted it, built on it, and found out only when it broke in front of someone who mattered. Occasional wrongness is survivable. Everything is wrong sometimes. What actually bites is being wrong while sounding certain, and agreeable, and exactly like what you wanted to hear. How to tell if your agent is a yes-machine You can test it in a minute. Tell it a bad idea on purpose. Propose somethi

Hi 👋 I'm Jonas. CS bachelor, Entrepreneurship master. By day I'm at nono . On the side I'm building SportsFlow solo — and I'm going to write about every hard part of it out in the open. This is the intro. What I'm building SportsFlow replaces the thing every amateur handball coach still uses: a clipboard and a pen. The idea is simple. Live-track every shot, assist and save during the game on a phone or tablet, and get real season analytics out the other end — shooting percentages, heatmaps, goalkeeper saves, momentum, lineup impact. Handball first, then volleyball, basketball, ice hockey. I sat on enough benches to know the problem is real: the data is right there in the game , and it evaporates the second the whistle blows. Nobody should need a spreadsheet and a good memory to coach with numbers. Why I write about both code and product I build at the seam between engineering and product — that's the CS + Entrepreneurship combo. So I won't only post architecture. I'll also post the decisions about what's worth building at all : where I drew scope lines, what I deliberately didn't build, how billing shapes the data model. The recurring theme in everything here is one idea: Make the correct thing structural. Idempotency in the schema, not the network. Tenancy in the procedure, not the query. Types from one zod definition, not two. Discipline the system enforces, not discipline you have to remember — because when you're solo, the stuff you have to remember eventually fails. What you'll get if you follow along Biweekly build-in-public deep-dives, including the honest costs and not just the wins: Offline-first capture — sports halls have zero WiFi, so the whole tracking pipeline works offline and reconciles later without double-counting goals. One analytics codebase, three runtimes — the same shooting-percentage code runs in the web app, the native app, and offline during live tracking, so the numbers can never disagree. Shipping four apps solo from one monorepo — web, n

How to Create an AI Agent: A Production Walkthrough The first agent I shipped to production failed at 3am on a Sunday. It looped on a tool call, burned through $40 in tokens before my budget alarm fired, and left a half-written draft in the database with no way to resume. That night taught me more about agent design than any framework tutorial. Since then I have built a pattern I trust enough to leave running unattended for weeks at BizFlowAI, where agents research, write, optimize and publish content without me touching them. This is that pattern, stripped down to what actually matters. Start with the job spec, not the framework Before you pick LangGraph, CrewAI, or roll your own, write the agent's job spec like you would for a junior engineer. One paragraph. What it owns, what it must never do, what "done" looks like, and which signals tell you it failed. Here is the spec for one of my production agents: The Topic Researcher owns generating a ranked list of 20 content topics per site per week. It reads from keyword_pool and search_console_perf , writes to topic_queue . It must never publish, never call paid APIs more than 8 times per run, and must finish in under 6 minutes. Done = 20 topics with score >= 0.6 and zero duplicates against the last 90 days. Failure signal = empty queue after a run, or any topic flagged by the dedupe check. If you cannot write this paragraph, do not build the agent. You will end up with a "do everything" prompt that hallucinates its way through ambiguous tasks. The job spec becomes your evaluation rubric later, so write it carefully. Rule of thumb I use : if the spec needs more than 5 tools or more than 3 decision branches, it is two agents, not one. Design the tools before you write the prompt Most agent failures I have debugged were not prompt failures. They were tool failures. The model called a tool with wrong arguments, the tool returned a 4MB JSON blob, or two tools had overlapping responsibilities and the model picked the wrong

The AI Implementation Process I Use With Every Client Most AI projects do not fail at the model. They fail in the six weeks before anyone writes a prompt, and in the six weeks after the demo lands in a Slack channel and nobody knows who owns it. I have run enough of these now (from one-off automations to multi-agent content systems running unattended) that the process has converged into something stable. This is the version I actually use. It has five phases: scoping, POC, integration, evaluation, operations. Each phase has an exit criterion. If we cannot meet the exit criterion, we do not move forward. That single rule has saved more projects than any clever architecture choice. Phase 1: Scoping (1 to 2 weeks, fixed price) Scoping ends with a written document that names the workflow being automated, the system of record it touches, the success metric in hours or dollars, the data we have access to, and the smallest possible first slice. No model is chosen yet. No code is written. If we cannot produce that document, the engagement stops here and the client keeps the document. The hardest part of scoping is resisting the urge to solve the interesting problem. Clients almost always describe the AI-shaped fantasy ("an agent that handles all support tickets") when the real opportunity is narrower and uglier ("triage tier-1 tickets that mention billing, route to the right queue, draft a reply for human approval"). The narrower version ships. The fantasy does not. I run scoping as three sessions: Workflow walkthrough. Someone who actually does the work shows me their screen for an hour. I record it. I take timestamps. The point is to find the moments where a human is doing pattern matching that an LLM can do, and to find the moments where they are doing judgment that an LLM should not do. Data audit. Where does the input live? Where does the output need to go? What is the auth story? If the data is locked inside a SaaS product with no API and no export, that is the projec

Every npm project is one malicious package away from a supply-chain breach. NPM Safety Guard catches threats that npm audit completely misses — from DPRK backdoors and typosquatted packages, to exposed API keys and AI credential theft hidden inside your node_modules. This video walks through all 23 detection layers, one by one, showing exactly what each layer catches and how it protects your project in real time. 🛡️ Intro NPM Safety Guard is the most comprehensive npm security scanner for developers. It ships as a VS Code extension (also works in Cursor and Windsurf) and a JetBrains plugin (WebStorm, IntelliJ IDEA, and all IntelliJ-based IDEs). It runs silently in the background and alerts you to supply-chain threats, malware, CVEs, and credential leaks — before they can cause damage. Layer 1 — Known Malicious Packages Checks every package in your package.json against a bundled database of documented supply-chain attacks, including DPRK/Lazarus Group backdoors, the infamous event-stream compromise, and dozens of other confirmed malicious packages. The database is also synced against a live remote feed so newly discovered threats are caught even before you update the extension. Layer 2 — CVE Vulnerabilities Queries the Google OSV.dev API for known CVEs across all your direct dependencies. No API key needed — it is completely free. Results are cached for 24 hours to minimize network calls. CVSS scores are mapped to severity levels (Critical, High, Medium, Low) so you always know exactly how serious each vulnerability is and which version fixes it. Layer 3 — Install Script Hooks Flags packages that declare preinstall, postinstall, install, or prepare npm scripts. These hooks run automatically during npm install — before any of your own code executes — making them the number one real-world vector for supply-chain malware delivery. Legitimate packages that genuinely need install scripts (like node-gyp and imagemin) are automatically whitelisted. Layer 4 — Deep Tarball AS

Originally published on bckinfo.com Redis with Docker Compose: Persistence, Security, and Production-Ready Configuration Table of Contents Why Redis Containers Lose Data RDB vs AOF: Choosing a Persistence Strategy Basic Setup with Docker Compose Full Persistence Configuration Securing Redis in Docker Setting Resource Limits Redis in a Multi-Service Stack Backing Up and Restoring a Redis Volume Common Issues and Quick Fixes Closing Notes Redis is one of the most common services to run in Docker — it's fast to spin up, lightweight, and perfect for caching, session storage, and queues. But that same simplicity hides a trap: by default, Redis in Docker stores everything in memory, and the moment a container is removed, all of that data disappears . This guide walks through setting up Redis with Docker Compose the right way — covering persistence, authentication, resource limits, and the health checks you need before putting it anywhere near production. Why Redis Containers Lose Data A Docker container is meant to be disposable. That's a feature for stateless services, but it's a liability for a database like Redis. If you start a plain Redis container without a mounted volume, here's what happens: The container writes its dataset only inside its own writable layer. docker compose down or docker rm removes that layer entirely. The next time the container starts, Redis initializes with an empty dataset. This single oversight accounts for a large share of "we lost our session data" incidents in small teams running Redis in containers for the first time. The fix is straightforward once you understand the two persistence mechanisms Redis offers. RDB vs AOF: Choosing a Persistence Strategy Redis supports two persistence models, and production setups typically combine both: RDB (Redis Database snapshots) Point-in-time snapshots of the dataset, saved at intervals you define. Fast to restore, but you can lose any writes that happened after the last snapshot. AOF (Append Only Fil

Introduction This article is not about introducing a new security tool. Nor is it an argument to replace Secret Scanners, SAST, or other existing security technologies. Instead, I want to propose an architectural concept for the AI era: How should security controls be positioned within a software development workflow where AI agents generate most of the artifacts? I call this concept the AI Security Gate . AI Is No Longer Just a Coding Assistant Generative AI has evolved far beyond code completion. Today's AI systems can already: Generate source code from requirements Write unit tests Refactor existing code Create pull requests Review code The next logical step is a development workflow where: AI implements, AI reviews, and AI iterates. In such a world, relying on humans as the final security checkpoint no longer scales. When AI-generated artifacts are reviewed by another AI, we need a security mechanism that operates independently of AI reasoning and executes every time without exception. What Is an AI Security Gate? I define an AI Security Gate as: A deterministic security control layer that validates AI-generated artifacts before they are accepted into a software development workflow. Two words in this definition are particularly important. Artifacts The scope is broader than source code. It includes any artifact produced by AI, such as: Source code Infrastructure as Code Dockerfiles Kubernetes manifests SQL scripts CI/CD workflows API specifications Deterministic An AI Reviewer performs reasoning. It may conclude: "This design is easier to maintain." An AI Security Gate does not reason. Instead, it verifies objective facts such as: An API key is embedded. A private key is committed. An organizational policy is violated. Its purpose is not to judge software quality. Its purpose is to enforce security rules consistently. Four Characteristics of an AI Security Gate I believe an AI Security Gate should satisfy four fundamental properties. 1. Deterministic Every exec

Denormalization has been the standard approach to analytical data modeling for good reason. Moving joins, lookups, and business rules out of query time and into ingestion gives you the fastest possible reads for a known access pattern. For most of the past decade, it was often the practical default for latency-sensitive analytics. Earlier columnar engines and distributed query processors could execute joins, but many workloads paid for them through higher latency, higher compute cost, spill-to-disk, or distributed coordination overhead. That constraint has loosened. Modern columnar databases with advanced join algorithms have reduced the cost of runtime joins enough that normalization is now a genuinely viable option for many analytical workloads. Denormalization still delivers faster reads, but normalization can bring operational benefits: simpler pipelines, flexible schemas, and cleaner governance. Engineers can now make the decision based on their actual workload characteristics, rather than being forced into one approach by engine limitations. This guide is a decision framework for making that choice in ClickHouse. It starts with why denormalization became the default, explains what has changed in join performance, then compares the tradeoffs on both sides so you can decide where to denormalize, where to join, and where to use ClickHouse primitives that bridge the gap. For a broader evaluation framework covering latency, concurrency, ingest throughput, SQL flexibility, and cost across real-time OLAP options, see our guide to choosing a database for real-time analytics in 2026 . For a deeper comparison of how ClickHouse executes star schema joins against Druid, Pinot, and cloud DWHs, see our star schema and fast joins guide . TL;DR Denormalization and normalization are both valid modeling strategies. The right choice depends on your workload. Denormalization's tradeoffs are primarily operational : pipeline complexity, write-path overhead, data freshness lag, back

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

See the perspectives you're missing. Discussion | Link

Imagine if there were a way for us to somehow ship a full-stack package that you could plug into your...

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...