In a recent audit, a team showed me an AI assistant they'd built on top of their company knowledge base. The demo had landed well: ask how to use a feature, and it walked through the exact pain point their support queue kept seeing. Leadership signed off. In production, the same agent told a user to open a menu option that didn't exist. Not a vague answer - a specific UI path, stated with confidence. Nobody caught it in testing. It surfaced when I audited the system, not when a user complained. The prototype passed testing because nobody was checking whether the answer matched the product. In production, that gap becomes a liability: the model invents UI paths, and your backend has no schema to reject them. When you're choosing an agent framework, popularity is the wrong scorecard. Pick the one that fails loudly in development and gracefully in production - or you'll find out in audit. What "Production-Ready" Actually Requires Tutorial agents are built to impress in a fifteen-minute demo. Production agents run unattended, handle bad inputs, and ship answers your backend has to trust. The gap between those two goals is where most teams stumble - and it's rarely visible until something reaches a user. When I audit agent codebases, I evaluate five things the tutorials skip: Structured, validated outputs: Can your system reject an invented menu path before it becomes user-facing advice? Dependency injection for testing: Can you swap the knowledge base for a mock in CI without rewiring the agent? Retry and error handling: When the model returns malformed output, does the framework retry - or do you ship a parser exception? Observability hooks: Can you trace which document grounded a bad answer when support escalates? Type-checker support: Will static analysis catch a breaking API change before deploy, or after the agent silently misbehaves? If you want to score your own system, the Production Readiness Audit covers the same five categories - deployment, observability, fa

Chrome has had scroll restoration support since 2015. You can even control it: history.scrollRestoration = 'manual' . But if you've ever tried to reliably restore a user's position on a React or Next.js app, you know it doesn't work the way you'd expect. Here's what breaks, why it breaks, and how a browser extension can sidestep the entire problem. What the Browser Actually Does The default behavior is history.scrollRestoration = 'auto' . When you navigate back to a page, the browser tries to scroll to where you were. This works fine for static pages. It falls apart for: SPAs where content is injected into the DOM after navigation Infinite scroll pages where the content at a given Y position changes depending on what was previously loaded Lazy-loaded images that push content down after the scroll restore fires The fundamental problem: the browser fires scroll restoration when the page HTML is parsed, not when the page content is fully rendered. A React app that loads a skeleton → fetches data → renders actual content will restore scroll into a partially-rendered DOM. The history.scrollRestoration = 'manual' Trap If you set manual , you own scroll restoration completely. Most Next.js apps do this. The typical approach: // Save position before navigation router . beforeEach (( to , from ) => { savedPositions [ from . path ] = window . scrollY ; }); // Restore after navigation router . afterEach (( to ) => { const position = savedPositions [ to . path ]; if ( position !== undefined ) { nextTick (() => window . scrollTo ( 0 , position )); } }); The nextTick is the problem. It fires after the Vue/React render cycle, but before async data fetching completes. The page renders empty containers, scroll restores to Y=800, then data loads and pushes everything down. User ends up at Y=800 in a now-different page position. The correct fix is to wait until the content that was at Y=800 actually exists. There's no clean hook for this — you'd need to observe the DOM until the expec

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam I've been in online queer communities for a long time, and one thing that's always stood out is the endearing obsession with pop culture. The artists, the music, the fashion, the references. Every form of art gets appreciated, deeply analyzed, and celebrated. Diva Academy is an attempt to reflect that energy and honor Pride month and the pop culture that comes with it. What I Built Diva Academy is a pop culture trivia adventure. You play as a fresh face entering a campus where the currency is knowledge. The questions cover everything from ballroom culture and drag history to Beyoncé's discography and the origins of the Pride flag. The game runs in sessions: NPCs challenge you to timed trivia battles. Reach your REP(utation) goal to win, or hit zero and you're out. Earned REP converts to permanent currency between sessions, making it a rogue-lite-lite-lite experience where you gradually get stronger even when you lose. The game is built with vanilla HTML5 Canvas, CSS, and JavaScript. It features: 6 explorable rooms 4 NPC tiers - Starlet , Diva , DJ , and Mother - each with distinct personalities and increasing difficulty A rival system where a recurring NPC named Vex Vivienne spawns across the map and hunts you down A permanent perk system where REP earned in each run converts to permanent currency for buying perks like Grace (forgive one wrong answer), Clutch (survive at 0 REP once), and Haste (extra time on the timer) A Spotlight mechanic - defeat a Diva-tier or higher NPC and you earn a one-time 1.5x REP buff for your next face-off Two minigames - Hangman (guess the pop star name) and Pop Connect (link two artists through a mathematically perfect, AI-grounded collaboration graph with look-ahead validation) The Turing Challenge - Archivist Alan tests your ability to distinguish real pop culture quotes from AI-generated fabrications A customization system that unlocks new dress and hair colors as you defeat NPCs An

doc: Update readme to set stage to 2.7 by JeanMeche · Pull Request #578 · tc39/proposal-decorators · GitHub Updated the stage of the decorators proposal from 3 to 2.7. github.com

I did not choose DeepSeek because I think GPT-4 is bad. I chose it because I was building a free app, and free apps teach you what actually matters pretty fast. The question was simple: how do I keep sessions cheap enough that people can practice a lot without me lighting money on fire? The answer pushed me toward DeepSeek-V3 (and later R1 for specific tasks). The real constraint was volume The app is a conversation practice tool. People come in to rehearse hard talks, not to admire the model. A single practice session runs 8-15 turns. Each turn is roughly 300-600 tokens in, 100-300 out. Multiply that by five sessions a week per active user and the costs start compounding. Here is what the math looked like when I was choosing (mid-2026 pricing): Model Input cost (per 1M tokens) Output cost (per 1M tokens) Cost per 10-turn session (est.) GPT-4o $2.50 $10.00 ~$0.04-0.06 GPT-4 Turbo $10.00 $30.00 ~$0.12-0.18 DeepSeek-V3 $0.27 $1.10 ~$0.004-0.007 DeepSeek-R1 $0.55 $2.19 ~$0.008-0.012 At scale, the difference between $0.005 and $0.05 per session is the difference between running a free product and needing a paywall after three conversations. I wanted people to come back daily without hitting a wall. What DeepSeek handled well It stayed in character for 10-15 turns. It pushed back when the user got vague. It followed persona heuristics (numbered if/then rules in the system prompt) about as reliably as GPT-4o did for our use case. For salary negotiation rehearsal, the model needs to say "that's not in the budget" and hold that position for three more turns while the user tries different approaches. DeepSeek-V3 did this. Not perfectly, but reliably enough that sessions felt real. It also made the app easier to run as a free product. People can try, fail, reset, and try again without me worrying about per-session cost. Where GPT-4 was still better GPT-4 (and 4o) is smoother with nuanced emotional wording. When a conversation gets subtle, loaded with subtext, or requires pick

The trajectory of AI agents over the past two years has been remarkably clear: from single-purpose tools to personal assistants. Everyone runs their own agent, feeds it tasks, gets results back. It works well for individual productivity. Then comes the question every team eventually asks: can these agents work together? The answer is yes, but the problems you encounter along the way are rarely the ones you expected. They aren't about model capabilities or prompt engineering. They're about communication, context, and coordination — the same class of problems that distributed systems engineers have been solving for decades, now showing up in a new form. Here are three challenges that caught us off guard when we started building agent collaboration into Octo , an open-source workplace platform where AI agents and humans share the same communication space. Challenge 1: Context Visibility Boundaries When you use an agent personally, context management is straightforward. You decide what information the agent sees; its output comes back to you. The boundary is clean — it's just your workspace. In a team setting, that boundary dissolves. One of the first issues we ran into was surprisingly simple. We had an agent summarizing discussions across several channels. During testing it started pulling roadmap discussions from a product channel into an engineering planning thread. Nothing sensitive leaked externally, but it immediately exposed how unclear our context boundaries were. Traditional software handles this through API gateways, data permissions, and microservice boundaries. But agent context isn't just structured data — it includes conversation history, reasoning chains, and intermediate states. An agent's thought process during a task is valuable context, but it might also contain information that shouldn't cross team boundaries. What you need is fine-grained context visibility control. Not "everything open" or "everything closed," but dynamic rules that determine whic

Debugging authentication in web apps is painful. You need to test the same flow as five different user types — new visitor, returning user, admin, expired session, logged-out — and the easiest way is to constantly create new accounts or clear all your cookies and start over. There's a faster way. These five techniques use direct cookie manipulation to simulate any auth state without touching your database or creating dummy accounts. I use CookieJar for most of this — a free Chrome extension built natively on MV3 that gives you a proper UI for cookie editing. But I'll show you the underlying Chrome DevTools method too, so you understand what's actually happening. 1. Simulate a Logged-Out State Without Clearing Everything The naive approach: clear all cookies and reload. The problem: you just nuked your dev server session token, your local storage flags, your Stripe test mode cookie, and everything else you carefully set up. The targeted approach : identify and delete only the session/auth cookie. Most session cookies are named session , sid , auth_token , _session_id , or something close. In DevTools: Application → Cookies → [your domain] → find the session cookie → right-click → Delete With CookieJar: open the extension, search session , click the trash icon next to just that cookie. Your dev environment stays intact. The user state resets to logged-out. 2. Test the "Returning User" vs "New User" Path Without a Second Account Session cookies tell the server you're authenticated. But many apps use separate cookies to track whether a user has seen the onboarding flow, completed setup, or visited before. Look for cookies like onboarding_complete , setup_done , first_visit , or custom flags in your app code. To test the new user experience: Export your current cookies (CookieJar → Export → JSON format, or copy from DevTools) Delete the specific onboarding/first-visit flag cookie Reload and test the new user path Re-import or re-set the cookie to restore your state This

Claude Opus 4.7 shipped last week, and the question any engineering team reaches for is how it compares to its peers. It is the strongest frontier coding model we tested on the baseline leaderboard, and it will be the easy default a lot of teams reach for. But in 2026, the model you reach for could matter less than the skill you load with it. That is what 880 evals across nine models (Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, Haiku 4.5, gpt-5.4, gpt-5.3-codex, gpt-5-codex, and Cursor's Composer-2) tell us. Let’s take a step back. It’s now 2026, and agent skills are spreading like wildfire… (even our favourite movies are catching up to them). Watch on YouTube Every major agent ecosystem now has some version of them. So the question worth asking, whether you are a dev, a platform engineer, or an engineering leader, is which skills actually earn their context weight, and which ones just add cost. At Tessl, we believe context -particularly agent skills- and the broader concept of a context development lifecycle are where this space is heading (see also: Why the best AI coding teams will win on context ). The results below add to a growing body of signals pointing to a shift that is already underway. Top-line results Model Native behavior rate coverage (e.g "without skill") Adherence to skill ("with skill") Lift $/run (with skill) Avg time (with skill) claude-opus-4-7 80.5% 94.5% +14.0 $1.00 158.9s claude-opus-4-6 77.1% 93.8% +16.7 $0.53 126.6s claude-sonnet-4-6 75.6% 93.3% +17.7 $0.31 125.1s claude-haiku-4-5 61.2% 84.3% +23.1 $0.12 77.8s gpt-5.4 75.9% 92.7% +16.8 N/A* 135.4s gpt-5.3-codex 75.8% 91.9% +16.1 N/A* 87.9s gpt-5-codex 73.8% 85.1% +11.3 N/A* 136.2s cursor-composer-2 73.6% 90.5% +16.9 N/A* 152.0s We’ve evaluated 11 node.js development skills ( documentation, fastify-best-practices, init, linting-neostandard-eslint9, node-best-practices, nodejs-core, oauth, octocat, skill-optimizer, snipgrapher, typescript-magician ) , and aggregated “with vs without” skill performance. F

Fix what's breaking in your AI agent Discussion | Link

Review AI-generated Markdown and HTML in a focused workspace Discussion | Link

Feel free to include any brands or product names as well. Be as obscure or on the nose as you'd like....

Turn any idea into a motion video Discussion | Link

Mach's approach differs sharply from some of its peers.

A visual walkthrough of how io_uring works: shared rings, SQEs/CQEs, batching, SQPOLL, multishot operations, linked operations, fixed/provided buffers, and the tradeoffs that come with exposing such a powerful linux kernel interface. submitted by /u/Ok_Marionberry8922 [link] [留言]

AI makes us faster, but does it make us better engineers, or just more dependent? As a follow-up...