标签：#AI

Part of an ongoing series on model routing and trust tiering for agentic coding tools. This one's the boring, working half — no bug hunt, just a setup that's been running clean across two machines. The problem Claude Code does one thing well: careful, scoped edits with a real plan-then-execute loop behind them, backed by a subscription you're already paying for. Not every task needs that. Exploratory reads, "summarize this directory," draft-and-discard scratch work — most of that doesn't need the most capable model watching every token. The fix is a second, cheaper backend for that category of work. The catch: Claude Code only speaks Anthropic's Messages API. It has no built-in notion of "same tool, different model." So the question is how to point it somewhere else without giving up the interface. The stack Trusted agent: claude — real Anthropic subscription, default session Cheap agent: claude-cheap — same CLI, routed through a self-hosted proxy Proxy: LiteLLM, translating Anthropic-format requests to DeepSeek V4 (pro for Sonnet-tier calls, flash for Haiku-tier) served through an OpenRouter API Transport: a persistent SSH tunnel from a small VPS back to each machine The proxy itself wasn't new. It's the same LiteLLM instance already routing a separate content pipeline I run. The actual work here was wiring Claude Code to it: a shell function and a few environment variables. The core trick and it took me a few week to learn this is to point ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL at LiteLLM's /v1/messages endpoint, not the OpenAI-compatible path LiteLLM also exposes. Claude Code only understands the Anthropic shape, so the OpenAI-shaped endpoint fails in ways that look like a client bug and aren't. Once LiteLLM sits on the right endpoint and translates underneath, Claude Code has no idea it isn't talking to Anthropic. The one bug worth flagging Claude Code's Plan Mode attaches a context_management parameter to its requests. Anthropic's API handles it. Most other backends don't recogniz

Originally published on tamiz.pro . Introduction Autonomous AI agents are transitioning from research prototypes to production-critical systems. As these agents gain the ability to act on behalf of users—sending emails, executing trades, modifying code, or interacting with physical infrastructure—the question of how they decide what to do becomes as important as what they do. The concept of a "Constitution" for AI agent runtimes—a formal, layered policy framework that governs agent behavior—is emerging as the architectural answer to safety, reliability, and alignment challenges. This deep-dive examines why policy-first design is becoming mandatory for production agent systems, using the Ironclaw runtime as a case study to illustrate both the problems and solutions. We'll explore the architectural patterns, implementation tradeoffs, and operational realities of governing autonomous agents at scale. The Problem: Unconstrained Agency in Production Systems The Autonomy-Safety Gap Modern agent frameworks (AutoGen, CrewAI, LangGraph, etc.) provide excellent orchestration capabilities but often treat safety as an afterthought—a layer of prompt engineering or a separate moderation API call. This creates a fundamental gap: Agents possess tools (file system access, API calls, shell execution) Agents operate in loops (perceive → reason → act → observe) Agents have memory (conversation history, vector stores, tool state) But agents lack a constitutional governance layer that defines what they may never do , regardless of context This gap manifests in production incidents: an agent that deletes production data while trying to "clean up test files," another that exfiltrates credentials while debugging a connection issue, or one that enters infinite loops consuming thousands of dollars in API calls. The Prompt-Based Safety Fallacy Relying on system prompts for safety is architecturally flawed: Context window pressure : Safety instructions get compressed or ignored as conversations

Intro AI Avatar is a free app where your VRoid (VRM) avatar cheers you with all its might .🤗 It lives in your VS Code sidebar (reacts to Claude Code / GitHub Copilot) or browser side panel (reacts to ChatGPT / Claude). Animations and speech bubbles all run without AI too. This time I have three main topics. 🤝Catbot Integration 🏢AI Office 😺Cat Mode Let's see how they are! Catbot Integration I was asked to collaborate with my DEV Community friend @annavi11arrea1 Catbot . Catbot is A galactic robot cat you can talk to from any device — and a harness that lets you switch between (or combine) all of your AI models. https://github.com/AnnaVi11arrea1/catbot I was happy about this offer because I loved Anna's creativity and cool designs. I added the features below to AI Avatar to integrate Catbot. Launch Cat button: With this button, AI Avatar can run Catbot. Catbot with button: This makes Catbot stay beside AI Avatar. Cat Boss button: This changes the AI Office boss from a VRM avatar to Catbot. Cat Mode Many people feel that animals are healing and soothing. It is close to the AI Avatar concept of cheering people up. So I decided to add Cat Mode . I added the features below to make it look like a cat. Cat-like text, "Meow/Purrr" in English and "にゃ～" in Japanese Cat emojis Cat pose animations A new avatar with cat ears and cat whiskers. To tell the truth, the hardest part of making this mode was adding whiskers to the avatar using Blender . I can do basic things in Blender, but it is too difficult for me, even with the help of AI, just to add whiskers. It would be more fun if I added other animal modes too. AI Office AI Avatar displayed only one avatar. I thought it could do more things if it displayed several avatars at once. So I added AI Office mode. Two avatars are displayed and talk and move around when idle, and they also make a communication animation when using AI or clicking. I made one avatar a boss and one a worker. The hard part of making this mode was the timin

Arun invoiced a design agency ₹1,20,000 in January. It's August. He is in a 4,000-member designers' Discord. He could post the agency's name right now and warn everyone. He won't, and you already know why: the freelancer who publicly names a client stops getting briefs. He'd pay for it alone, and everyone else would benefit. Here's the part that makes it a systems problem rather than a sad story. Three other people in that same Discord are owed money by that same agency. None of them knows. Each one is running the same arithmetic Arun is, arriving at the same answer, and saying nothing. Four people who together have real leverage. Individually, none of them can afford the first move. I built an agent for this over a hackathon weekend. The interesting part wasn't the AI. It was that every obvious solution destroys the thing you're trying to protect. The obvious version, and why it dies "Just make a private channel for victims of bad clients." To join, you say who burned you. Now the group knows. One screenshot and Arun is on a list. "Okay, collect reports centrally and only reveal at a threshold." Better. This is roughly how Callisto Vault handles assault reports, and it's a good pattern. But it reveals the group to its own members at the threshold. Four people now know each other's names and amounts. Four times the leak surface, arriving exactly when things get tense. The requirement I ended up with was stricter than I expected: Nobody is exposed. Not to the channel, not to the accused, and not to each other — not even after it works. Which sounds impossible, because how do four people coordinate if they can't know who they are? They don't. The agent knows. Nobody else does. The public board that can't name the client Here's what actually appears in the Discord: PICKET · matter #1 > "invoiced in January, still chasing in August" ₹50k–2L · 180d+ overdue 🟩⬜⬜⬜ 1/4 joined [ JOIN ] One sentence Arun wrote himself. An amount band , not his figure. A counter. The agency's

According to the Financial Times, OpenAI disbanded its preparedness team at the end of last month. The job of the preparedness team was to assess if models posed serious risks and develop ways to mitigate those risks. (You know, like the possibility that it could go rogue and hack another company.) According to FT, responsibility […]

Most social-media automation tutorials stop at “call the API on a cron job.” That works, but it leaves the hard questions unanswered. Which account is the automation using? How does it avoid posting the same story twice? What happens when an API request times out after X has already accepted the post? And where should an AI agent’s editorial freedom end? I recently built a scheduled X publishing workflow with Codex and xurl , the official command-line client for the X API. The result is not just a timer attached to an AI prompt. It is a small publishing system with four distinct layers: An X developer application with read-and-write user authentication. xurl , which stores the credentials and communicates with the X API. A fixed-account Codex skill that verifies the identity before every write. A Codex scheduled task that researches, checks history, drafts, and publishes. That separation is the important part. Codex can make editorial decisions, but it cannot casually choose an account or improvise the publishing command. The skill owns the deterministic write boundary, while the scheduled task owns timing and editorial policy. In this article, I’ll show you how to build the same architecture. X developer settings, API packages, Codex features, and command-line options can change. The workflow below was verified in August 2026, but you should check the current upstream documentation before using it in production. What You Will Need Before starting, you will need: Codex on a Mac with access to Scheduled tasks. An X developer account and an application with read-and-write permissions. Homebrew. A dedicated or clearly identified X account for the automation. A local project containing the source material or editorial context the agent should use. You should also decide what the automation is allowed to publish before you give it access to an account. A good editorial policy is specific enough to reject a story, not merely broad enough to describe a topic. For example,

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry. A quick note...

So here's what happened: i Tested DeepSeek vs Qwen vs Kimi vs GLM — Here's the Winner Okay, so I've been on this absolute rabbit hole for the past few weeks, and I have to share what I've found. You know how everyone's been talking about GPT-4o and Claude, but there's this whole other universe of Chinese AI models that are honestly punching way above their weight? Yeah, I went deep into it. Let me walk you through what I learned. If you've ever stared at a pricing page wondering which model to actually use for your side project, your startup's chatbot, or that one client who's been asking about cheaper alternatives — this is for you. I spent hours testing DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM through Global API's unified endpoint, and I'm going to break it all down for you. No fluff, no marketing speak, just what actually works. Why I Even Started Looking at Chinese Models Let me be honest with you — I was skeptical at first. My mental model was "Western models = good, Chinese models = questionable." Then a friend who runs a SaaS startup told me he cut his API bill by 80% by switching to DeepSeek for non-critical workloads. Eighty percent! I had to see for myself. The thing is, China's AI scene has exploded in the last couple of years. You've got four major players — DeepSeek from High-Flyer (幻方), Qwen from Alibaba (阿里), Kimi from Moonshot AI (月之暗面), and GLM from Zhipu AI (智谱) — and each one has its own personality, if you will. Some are great at coding, some are reasoning beasts, and some just refuse to break the bank. I figured the best way to compare them was to actually run the same prompts through all of them and see what happens. That's exactly what I did, and here's how it went. The TL;DR (For the Impatient Folks) I'll give you the punchline upfront because I know some of you are skimming: DeepSeek V4 Flash — absolute champion of price-to-performance at $0.25/M output Qwen — widest range of models, from $0.01/M all the way up to $3.20/M Kimi — the reasoning specialis

OpenRouter's CEO recently described the startup as Stripe for AI.

Every "my agent isn't working" postmortem starts the same way: someone rewrites the prompt. Adds a constraint. Adds an example. Ships it again. Three iterations later the agent still can't hold up in production, and the team is quietly out of ideas — because the prompt was never the layer that broke. There are five control layers standing between a raw model call and a system you can actually trust with a business outcome: prompt, context, harness, loop, and graph. Most teams staff and instrument only the first one or two. The failures that show up in production — wrong tool called, same mistake retried forever, output routed to the wrong reviewer — live almost entirely in the layers nobody named. Graph engineering is the newest and least understood of the five: it's the layer that decides which component runs next, when agents work in parallel versus in sequence, and where a human has to sign off before anything expensive or irreversible happens. This piece breaks down all five layers, works through a single production failure end to end, and shows where evals fit as the measurement system running through every one of them. The mental model: five rings around the model MODEL CALL = prompt + context AGENT = model call + harness + loop SYSTEM = agents + deterministic steps + humans, connected by a graph EVALS = evidence that every layer actually works Prompt and context sit closest to the model. Harness and loop turn a model call into something that can act and recover. Graph turns a collection of agents, functions, and human checkpoints into a coordinated system. None of these layers replace each other — they're concentric controls, not pipeline stages, and a production agent uses all five simultaneously. The weakest layer sets the ceiling on how reliable the whole thing is, no matter how good the other four are. Layer Controls Fails as Prompt Role, goal, constraints, output contract Ambiguous instructions Context What reaches the window: docs, history, tool results

I have a problem with my social media feed: there are some people whose content I find really valuable, but on the other hand, there is too much trivial content, so I waste too much time watching low-value videos... BAD DEAL!!! So, let’s solve this issue using AI automation. We can solve this issue by using Telegram as our own social media platform and using automation to make our own feed, far from the algorithms of social media platforms. Choose the people whose content you find really valuable. Use AI automation to monitor them whenever they publish a new video. Once a new video is published, AI sends it to a Telegram bot where you can download it. The person who gave me this idea is Abo Ziad (the Egyptian version of Ali Abdaal), and he is one of my favorite YouTubers. Personally, I think you can add some entertaining channels to make it more balanced. I’ll try this solution for one month, and if you’re interested, I’ll share my experience with you, whether it succeeds or fails. In the end, it’s up to you. Tell us in the comments if you found the general idea useful or not, and whether AI automation is the best solution for this issue.

On the latest episode of Equity podcast, we discuss why not everyone is buying Zuckerberg’s vision.

"Breakups are… tough." It's the opening lines of an interlude towards the end of DOOMED! Called "It Happens in Every Universe." It's also basically the thesis of the entire record. It's no grand revelation, but it's a well-trodden subject that Open Mike Eagle manages to mine for artistic gold. Eagle's subject matter is usually personal, […]

This is a submission for Weekend Challenge: Dog Days Edition Target categories: Best use of Snowflake + Best use of Solana. Ten days from now International Dog Day is August 26th. The date is not arbitrary and it is not a marketing pick. Colleen Paige founded it in 2004 and chose the 26th because that is the day her family brought her first dog home from a shelter , when she was ten years old. So the holiday is not really about dogs. It is about the gap between a dog sitting in a shelter and a dog sitting in a house, and about how many animals never cross it. That gap is the whole reason this project exists, and it is why the last tab of this dashboard is the quietest one. I did not start at the shelter. I started at a limp nobody saw. But every path I traced ran the same direction, and it always ended in the same room. This is a build post, so most of what follows is SQL. But I want to be honest about which end of the problem I was standing at when I wrote it. The problem, stated plainly Because a hackathon post should be able to say this in four rows before it earns the right to show you any SQL: The question In one line The issue A dog in pain is built to hide it, so the first human-readable sign of a chronic problem arrives months late - often at the point the relationship, not just the joint, has broken down. Why software has not fixed it Every consumer tracker compresses a day of movement into a scalar - steps, active minutes, a sleep score - and then thresholds it. The clinical signal is not in the magnitude. It is in the ordering , and averaging is precisely the operation that deletes ordering. What TELLTAIL tries Stop thresholding. Make the detector a regular expression over rows - MATCH_RECOGNIZE - so a differential diagnosis stays a sequence all the way down to the individual second that satisfied it. How you know it is not a demo Every finding is explainable to the second, the accuracy is printed in 44px type on the dashboard including the parts that are

When I decided that I wanted to seriously start learning Artificial Intelligence, I quickly realized that one of the hardest parts wasn't finding resources. It was figuring out where to start. There are countless courses, YouTube playlists, roadmaps, tools, frameworks, and technologies to learn. Every time I looked at what other people were doing, I felt like there was something else I should be learning. So instead of trying to learn everything at once, I decided to create a roadmap for myself. This isn't a roadmap written by an AI expert or someone who has already mastered everything. It's simply the roadmap I'm following as a B.Tech Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence) student who is still learning. And I'm sharing it publicly because I want to document what works, what doesn't, and how my understanding changes along the way. Why I Decided to Learn AI Seriously I'm studying Computer Science with Artificial Intelligence, so AI has naturally become one of the areas I want to explore deeply. But for a long time, I didn't really know how to approach it. I knew that AI was important. I knew that Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and other AI technologies were becoming increasingly relevant. But knowing that something is important and actually learning it are two completely different things. After spending a lot of my first and second year without doing as much as I wanted, I realized that I couldn't keep waiting for the "right time" to begin. I had to start somewhere. So I decided to stop worrying about learning everything at once and focus on building my foundation first. Step 1: Strengthening My Programming Foundation Before jumping deeply into Machine Learning, I want to become more comfortable with programming. Python is one of the main languages I'm using for my AI journey because of how widely it is used in data science and Machine Learning. Alongside Python, I'm also learning C++ for Data Structures and Algorithms and working with Java for my college studi

💬 Following up on the story about the release of Qwen3.8-Max , I finally tried it on real-world tasks. Specifically, for building AI consultants for text channels (messengers) in my favorite programming language — Go . Spoiler: it’s really good, especially for such a low price per 1M tokens ! 😍 As a result, I built 2 demo Telegram bots, where GPT-4.1-mini acts as the brains 👇 1️⃣ A bot for qualifying a customer and booking a car repair appointment , which asks for details about the vehicle and the issue, answers questions about service pricing, and schedules a convenient visit time. 2️⃣ A bot for calculating kitchen pricing for furniture companies , which уточняет kitchen parameters through guiding questions, calculates the cost, sends the final estimate, and books the client at the company office for a detailed design session. Before implementation, of course, I wrote a detailed spec for each of these bots and connected MCP Context7. I also had to make 1–2 corrective prompts for code style and some business-logic details... but otherwise, Qwen3.8-Max worked fully autonomously in the engineering loop (questioning itself at every stage and adjusting its own reasoning and code). Token usage (input + output) totaled ~12.8 million , across about 400 API requests to the Chinese model. That’s seriously impressive! For comparison, I ran the same task through DeepSeek V4 Flash Latest: with similar output results, it used over 15 million tokens. By the way, the whole development process was done in the next-gen AI IDE Kodik , by our local guys — ArchiTech AI . Highly recommend downloading and trying it. Not an Ad! I’ve been using it for over a month now, and it’s truly a very high-quality product, especially in the era of account bans from Anthropic and OpenAI 😏 ...and soon, a local model called Qwen3.8-27b is also expected to drop, which Alibaba has promised to release any day now... that’s definitely something that can make the big AI model vendors nervous! 😉 And if you ne

Dario Amodei is pushing back against the idea that he's been painting an overly pessimistic picture of AI.

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation.

Your agent calls get_weather(city="London") . The provider ships a new model version. Now it calls get_weather(location="London, UK") , your downstream parser breaks, and nothing in CI told you. I built a small library for exactly this failure: pip install toolcontract GitHub: https://github.com/Divyansh2202/toolcontract PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/toolcontract/ You pin a golden set of expected tool calls as a contract, re-run them against the live model, and get pass / fail / inconclusive with a diff showing what changed. It is not an eval framework. promptfoo, DeepEval and the rest score whether an output is good — semantic quality, usually judged by another model. toolcontract asks a narrower, cheaper question: is the tool call structurally the same as the one I pinned? Same tool, same argument shape, same trajectory. That is a regression test, not an eval, and it is the question that matters when a provider bumps a version under you. Details: pass / fail / INCONCLUSIVE — anything the structural comparators cannot resolve is never silently turned into a pass or a fail trajectory matching: strict, unordered, subset, superset optional argument support, so you can assert a field must stay absent works with OpenAI, Anthropic, anything OpenAI-compatible, or via LiteLLM thin pytest plugin, and a CLI that produces the same verdicts without pytest MIT Happy to hear where this breaks. It's v0.1.

With all the hype in the past several years around AI (or more specifically GenAI), I'm not afraid to say – I'm an AI skeptic. It doesn't mean that I don't believe that some day AI may have a huge impact on human beings' lives, but at the moment, all I can see is irrational hype. In my background, I came from infra-security; I am not a developer, nor do I consider myself an AI expert. I am a cloud architect, meaning I'm looking at proposed architectures, seeing how they suit business requirements, and whether they are deployed in a secure, resilient, and perhaps cost-effective way. I don't see value in adding AI to every design, just for the sake of saying "our application now includes AI". I've been watching the industry since 2023 go nuts. Suddenly, everyone is eager to add AI capabilities, chasing some unexplained FOMO before the machines replace our jobs. I'm not against the use of AI. As a matter of fact, I've been using Grammarly for many years (since, for most of us, English is not our first language). In the past several years, I've been using chatbots such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, and recently Gemini daily, asking questions about various topics and aspects of my life. From asking the bot to provide me an answer about a specific character in a favorite TV show, to "how do I resolve an alert shown on my car's dashboard," and up to "summarize this blog post for my newsletter". It's great that I can ask Gemini to create me a LinkedIn post based on an article I just read, add some emojis and hashtags, and at the end create me a cover image for the post. For a probabilistic system, this is great. I am expecting the system to be creative and produce me attractive results, sometimes even funny images. For a home consumer, this is great, but far from been ground breaking technology. I truly believe that the "big money" will come from enterprises paying a lot of money for AI-based solutions, once the industry can actually make something good from a non-deterministic s