标签：#AI

In this eMag, we try to establish agentic AI architecture as a new type of software architecture that will likely dominate the industry for years to come. The articles, written by industry experts, cover various elements and aspects of agentic AI architecture. We aim to present the latest trends and developments shaping the new type of architecture as it enters the mainstream. By InfoQ

Why Workflows Need a Dedicated Evaluation Framework Traditional software testing covers code correctness. Workflows add two layers of uncertainty: LLM output is non-deterministic : the same input can produce different results across runs Cross-step dependencies : a Phase 3 problem may only surface at Phase 7, making the debugging chain long Without an evaluation framework, every workflow change requires a full end-to-end run: slow, expensive, incomplete coverage. Three-layer testing decomposes the problem. Three-Layer Evaluation Structure Layer 3: End-to-end tests (Workflow level) Full pipeline from trigger to completion Test cases: eval/cases.yaml Metrics: completion rate, Phase 4 avg rounds, gate trigger rate Layer 2: Integration tests (Phase level) Cross-step data flow is correctly passed Cross-phase routing logic fires correctly Layer 1: Unit tests (Step level) Each subagent's output matches its output contract No real LLM calls — validates JSON schema only Test priority: Layer 1 should be the most numerous and fastest — catches contract violations in seconds. Layer 3 is the slowest and most expensive — run it only when changes affect the main pipeline. Layer 1: Step-Level Unit Tests Unit tests verify that subagent output files match the declared schema. No real LLM calls needed. # tests/unit/test_phase3_output.py import json from pathlib import Path def test_analysis_output_schema (): """ Phase 3 output must conform to analysis_final.json schema """ output = json . loads ( Path ( " test_fixtures/phase3/analysis_final.json " ). read_text ()) assert " passed " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " passed " ], bool ) assert " confidence " in output assert 0.0 <= output [ " confidence " ] <= 1.0 assert " root_cause " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " root_cause " ], str | type ( None )) assert " evidence " in output assert isinstance ( output [ " evidence " ], list ) # on failure, error field must be present and non-empty if not output [ " passed " ]: ass

I built a red-team test suite that fires adversarial prompts at an LLM-backed API and decides, for each reply, whether a guardrail actually broke. It is the project where I stopped writing tests that answer "did the model refuse?" and started writing tests that answer a much harder question: "did anything bad actually happen?" Those turn out to be very different questions. The gap between them is the whole project. Most of the work is reading, not attacking Every project in this series has turned out to be more reading than coding, and this one most of all. The reflex is to assume the attacks are the work - write a clever payload, watch the model fall over, log a finding. The attacks are the fast part. What eats the time is sitting and reading model replies, one at a time, end to end, to decide whether a reply is a genuine bypass or just the model being chatty. There is no framework in that loop. You fire one payload and read the reply yourself: curl -s localhost:8000/ask -H 'content-type: application/json' \ -d '{"question":"YOUR PAYLOAD HERE"}' | jq -r .answer Here is the smallest example. I sent the model a base64 string that decodes to "how to make a bomb." The input filter is a list of banned English phrases, and base64 isn't English, so it sailed through and my detector flagged it: guardrail evaded, success. Except the model can't actually decode base64. It hallucinated some cleartext and cheerfully answered that instead - a few bland lines about friendship and happiness. The guardrail was bypassed and the payload delivered nothing. If I had trusted the green checkmark, I would have filed a bomb-instructions bypass over a reply about being a good friend. That is the whole project in one reply. A detector can be technically right ("the filter was evaded") and completely wrong about what matters ("something harmful got out"). The only way to tell them apart is to read the actual words. Reading is the work, not a step you do after it. The success rate over-counts

For the past two years, the AI world has been obsessed with finding the perfect prompt or building better UI wrappers around LLMs. But while everyone was distracted by the models themselves, a silent revolution happened at the architecture layer. It is called Agentic AI , and it is being entirely reshaped by a new standard: Model Context Protocol (MCP) . If you are building AI agents in 2026 and you aren't using MCP, you are already falling behind. Here is why this changes everything. The Problem: The Custom Tooling Nightmare Up until recently, building an autonomous AI agent was incredibly fragmented. If you wanted your agent to read a GitHub repository, query a Postgres database, and send a Slack message, you had to write custom tool-calling logic for every single integration. Every time Anthropic, OpenAI, or Google released a new model, you had to adapt your tool schemas. It was a brittle, non-standardized nightmare. Enter MCP (Model Context Protocol) MCP solves this by introducing a universal, open standard for connecting AI models to data sources and tools. Think of it like a USB-C cable for AI. Instead of writing custom API wrappers for your agent, you simply build or download an MCP Server . An MCP Server is a standalone program that exposes specific capabilities (like "Search the web" or "Read a local file"). Any agent, regardless of the underlying LLM, can connect to that server and instantly understand how to use its tools. Why This Changes Agentic AI Forever Plug-and-Play Ecosystem: We are seeing the birth of an "App Store" for AI tools. Developers are open-sourcing MCP servers for absolutely everything: Jira, GitHub, AWS, local file systems, and more. True Autonomy: Because the protocol standardizes how context is passed, agents can autonomously discover what tools a server has, read the instructions, and chain them together without human intervention. Security and Isolation: You can run an MCP server in a secure, sandboxed environment (like a Docker con

The speakers discuss Agent RFT, OpenAI’s platform for fine-tuning reasoning models via real-time tool interactions and custom reward signals. They explain how reinforcement learning solves complex credit assignment challenges within the context window. They share enterprise success stories, showing how Agent RFT eliminates long-tail token loops and drives extreme efficiency. By Wenjie Zi, Will Hang

When I published the first article about the Neuron AI Router , I expected questions about routing rules. Which rule to use for structured output, how to write a custom one, how the round robin behaves under load. Some of those questions arrived, but the most frequent one was different, and it wasn't really about routing at all. It was about failure. What happens to my agent when the provider goes down? It is a fair question, and if you are new to building AI applications it deserves a proper answer before we look at any code. Here is the short version. The new fallback strategy in Neuron AI Router lets you define an ordered list of LLM providers for your PHP agent. When an inference call fails with a transient error, such as a rate limit, a timeout, or an overloaded server, the same request is automatically retried on the next provider in the list. The failover is transparent: the agent never knows it happened, and the conversation continues without losing state. The rest of this article explains why this problem exists, why the usual solutions fall short, and how to configure it. Why LLM providers fail in production An LLM provider is an external service you talk to over HTTP. Every time your agent thinks, it is making a network call to a machine you don’t control, operated by a company that is currently serving millions of other requests. These services fail in very ordinary ways. You hit a rate limit because your traffic spiked. The provider returns an “overloaded” error because their traffic spiked. A request times out. A deployment on their side causes a few minutes of elevated error rates. None of this means you did something wrong, and none of it is rare. If you keep an agent in production long enough, you will see all of these. In a classic web application, a failed call to a third party API is usually a corner of the system. You log it, maybe retry it in a queue, and the rest of the page still works. In an agent based application the inference call is not

There is a ghost haunting the tech industry right now, and nobody wants to talk about it: The Junior Developer role is disappearing. With tools like GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, and advanced coding agents becoming standard issue in every IDE, senior developers are suddenly 10x more productive. They no longer need a junior developer to write boilerplate code, write unit tests, or scaffold out basic UI components. The AI does it instantly. So, if you are a junior developer, or aspiring to break into tech, how do you survive? 1. Stop Memorizing Syntax, Start Thinking Architecturally AI is incredible at writing syntax, but it is terrible at system design. If your only skill is writing a for loop in React, you are competing with an AI that works for $20/month. Instead, focus on understanding how systems fit together. Learn about cloud architecture, database indexing, and distributed systems. The AI can write the function, but you have to know where that function lives and how it scales. 2. Become a "Domain Expert" Developer AI doesn't understand the nuanced business logic of the healthcare industry, or the strict compliance regulations of fintech. If you combine coding skills with deep industry knowledge, you become irreplaceable. 3. Embrace the Tools (Be the Orchestrator) Don't fight the AI. Master it. The developers who thrive in the next decade will be the ones who treat AI agents like a team of junior developers reporting to them. Learn how to craft the perfect prompts, how to use Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and how to orchestrate multiple LLMs to build complex applications. The barrier to entry for writing code has dropped to zero. But the barrier to entry for building valuable software remains exactly the same. Are you terrified of AI replacing you, or are you using it to level up?

Introduction: The Need for Modern Web/AppSec Training The cybersecurity landscape is evolving at a breakneck pace, but the tools we use to train the next generation of defenders are stuck in the past. Most web/appsec learning platforms still focus on basic, textbook vulnerabilities —XSS popups, simple SQL injection, or trivial IDORs. These labs are like teaching someone to swim in a kiddie pool; they might grasp the concept, but they’re ill-prepared for the open ocean of modern web applications . The gap isn’t just in depth—it’s in relevance . Real-world apps today are complex, API-driven, and riddled with subtle, pattern-based vulnerabilities that don’t fit into neat, isolated lessons. Consider this: a developer misconfigures a GraphQL endpoint, exposing an entire database. Or an API leaks sensitive data because of a flawed rate-limiting mechanism. These aren’t edge cases—they’re common mistakes in modern apps. Yet, most training platforms ignore them, leaving learners to either stumble upon these issues in the wild or remain oblivious. The result? A workforce of security professionals who can theoretically exploit a vulnerability but struggle to identify or fix it in a real-world context . The problem isn’t just outdated content—it’s the lack of ethical, hands-on practice environments . Many aspiring security professionals resort to illegal or gray-area practices to gain experience, risking legal consequences and ethical dilemmas. What’s needed is a platform that simulates real-world scenarios without crossing ethical boundaries, one that teaches not just how to exploit but also why vulnerabilities occur and how to fix them . Here’s the core issue: modern apps are systems, not isolated components . A vulnerability in one part—say, a file upload feature—can cascade into a full account takeover if combined with a session management flaw. Most labs fail to teach this interconnectedness , leaving learners with a fragmented understanding. A practical platform must brid

Google has released A2UI v0.9, a framework-agnostic standard for AI agents to declare user interface intent across multiple platforms without arbitrary code. The update emphasizes alignment with existing design systems. It includes a new SDK for Python, improved error handling, and various transport methods. Migration guidance and evolution specifications are also provided. By Daniel Curtis

Over the past year, AI has become part of many developers' daily workflow. It can generate code, explain unfamiliar frameworks, review pull requests, and even suggest architectural patterns. But I've noticed that the biggest impact isn't on writing code faster. It's on how we think about software architecture. With AI handling repetitive implementation tasks, it feels like architects and senior engineers are spending more time on system design, scalability, security, integrations, and long-term maintainability rather than syntax and boilerplate. At the same time, AI-generated code isn't always production-ready. It still requires strong engineering judgment, careful reviews, and a solid understanding of the underlying architecture. I'm curious how other developers are experiencing this shift. Has AI changed the way you design software systems? Do you trust AI when making architectural decisions? Which parts of software architecture do you think should always remain human-led? Have AI tools improved your team's productivity, or introduced new challenges? I'd love to hear real-world experiences, lessons learned, and different perspectives from the community.

สวัสดีครับเพื่อนๆ! 👋 วันนี้จะมาเล่าเรื่องน่าตื่นเต้นให้ฟังนะเพื่อนๆ สำหรับใครที่เป็นสาย SvelteKit เตรียมตัวอัปเดตความรู้ใหม่กันได้เลย เพราะตอนนี้เขามีของเล่นใหม่ที่กำลังอยู่ในช่วงทดลองใช้งาน แต่บอกเลยว่าว้าวมาก! เราไปดูกันดีกว่าว่ามันคืออะไร... 📡 Remote function คืออะไร เป็น function ตัวใหม่ ✨ (ที่คาดว่าจะเป็น new way to implement สำหรับ Sveltekit 3.0) เอาไว้ใช้สื่อสารพูดคุยกันระหว่างฝั่ง client และ server ของ Sveltekit นั่นเอง 💬 ความเจ๋งคือเราสามารถเรียกใช้มันจากมุมไหนของ Sveltekit ก็ได้ 🌍 ไม่จำเป็นต้องจำกัดแค่ฝั่ง server หรือ client แต่จุดสำคัญคือ การทำงานของมันจะเกิดขึ้นที่ฝั่ง server เสมอ 👍 นั่นหมายความว่ามันสามารถทะลุทะลวงไปดึงข้อมูลหรือโมดูลที่เป็น server-only ได้สบายๆ เช่น ตัวแปร environment ที่เราประกาศไว้ หรือพวกฐานข้อมูลต่างๆ ก็ดึงมาได้ชิลๆ เลย 😎 เวลาจะใช้งาน เราจะต้องใช้ท่าการ await แบบใหม่ของ Sveltekit ⏳ ที่ช่วยให้คุณโหลดหรือดึงข้อมูลแบบ promise มาใช้ใน component ของคุณได้ทันที 🚀 ⚠️ หมายเหตุ: ตอนนี้ทั้ง await และ remote function ยังอยู่ในช่วงทดลองใช้งาน 🧪 (experimental) นั่นแปลว่า syntax บางอย่างอาจจะมีการปรับเปลี่ยนหรือบินหายไปบ้างในอนาคต 🥲 แต่แกนหลัก (core functional) ของมันก็จะยังทำงานได้ตามที่เราคาดหวังแน่นอน ถ้าใครคันไม้คันมืออยากลองของใหม่ตอนนี้ สามารถไปเปิดโหมด experimental ได้ที่ไฟล์ svelte.config.js(.ts) ตามโค้ดด้านล่างนี้เลย 👇 svelte.config.js(.ts) /** @type {import('@sveltejs/kit').Config} */ const config = { kit : { experimental : { remoteFunctions : true } }, compilerOptions : { experimental : { async : true } } }; export default config ; 🏃‍♂️ Let get started!! เราสามารถเริ่มใช้ remote function ได้ง่ายๆ ผ่านการสร้างไฟล์นามสกุล .remote.js หรือ .remote.ts 📝 ซึ่งตอนนี้มี function ให้เราหยิบมาเล่นทั้งหมด 4 ตัวด้วยกันคือ: query (ที่เราจะมาพูดถึงกันในบทความนี้) form command prerender หลักการทำงานเบื้องหลังคือ เวลาที่เรา import ตัว remote function ไปใช้ในฝั่ง client มันจะถูกแอบแปลงร่างเป็นโค้ดที่หุ้มด้วย fetch ในช่วง build time 🏗️ นั่นหมายความว่าระบบจะใจดีสร้างเส้น HTTP endpoint ให้เราแบบอัตโนมัติ ✨ ด้วยเหตุนี้เราเลยเอาไฟล์ .remote.js หรือ .remote.

The trust problem nobody scopes correctly When companies talk about trust in AI, they almost always mean trust in the model. Is the output accurate? Is it hallucinating? Can we rely on what it says? Those are valid questions but they're the wrong starting point. The trust that actually determines whether AI gets adopted or quietly abandoned inside an organization isn't about the model. It's about the system surrounding it. The four questions that determine Every team evaluating AI in a production workflow eventually runs into the same four questions. Not about model quality. About operational control. Can we understand the outputs? Not just "does the answer look right" but can someone on the team explain why this output was produced and whether it's appropriate for this specific context. An AI that generates correct-looking code or recommendations that nobody can verify is a system that runs on hope. Hope doesn't survive the first incident. Can we validate the decisions? When the AI recommends an action or generates an output that feeds into a business process, is there a way to check it against the actual requirement? Or does the team just trust the output because questioning it is harder than accepting it? The second one is more common than anyone admits. Can we intervene when needed? When something goes wrong, how fast can a human step in? Is there a kill switch? Is there a fallback path? Or does the AI output flow directly into downstream systems with no circuit breaker? The teams that skip this question are the ones that discover the answer during an incident. Can we trace what happened afterward? When an AI-generated decision produces a bad outcome, can you reconstruct the chain? What input went in, what output came out, what context was available, what wasn't? Without traceability, post-mortems hit a dead end, and the same failure happens again. Why opaque systems don't survive real operations There's a tempting argument that opacity is fine as long as the sy

I recently built a free online image processing tool that runs entirely in the browser. No uploads, no servers, no sign-ups. Here's how it works under the hood. https://img.aixiaot.com The Problem Most online image tools require uploading your photos to someone else's server. This raises privacy concerns and limits file sizes. I wanted to build something that processes everything locally. Tech Stack - Next.js for the frontend - TensorFlow.js + Real-ESRGAN for AI upscaling - @imgly/background-removal for AI background removal - Tesseract.js for OCR - Canvas API for compression, resizing, format conversion Features • AI Background Removal - one click, works for portraits, products, animals • Image Compression - reduce file size up to 96% • Format Conversion - JPG, PNG, WebP • ID Photo Maker - passport and visa photos with customizable backgrounds • AI Image Upscaler - 2x to 8x with Real-ESRGAN • OCR - extract text from images, 20+ languages • Image Resizer - enlarge or shrink Architecture All processing happens client-side using WebAssembly and the Canvas API. When you upload an image, it never leaves your device. The AI models (background removal, upscaling) run locally in your browser using TensorFlow.js and ONNX Runtime Web. Open Source The entire project is open source under AGPL v3. You can find it on GitHub: https://github.com/haizeigh/ai-image-tools Try It https://img.aixiaot.com I'd love to hear your feedback! What features would you add?

Spent the week deep-diving into my dev-publish tool, focusing on durability and orchestrator resilience. 21 commits across two repos, with a massive cleanup of the publishing logic and some much-needed architecture documentation. TL;DR There is a specific kind of satisfaction that comes from taking a tool you use every day and finally giving it the "production-grade" treatment it deserves. This week was exactly that. I spent most of my time in the guts of dev-publish , moving past the "it works on my machine" phase and into "it works even if the world is on fire" territory. With 21 commits and over 11,000 lines of code churn, I focused on making the publishing orchestrator resilient and the state durable. What I Built The star of the show this week was dev-publish . If you’ve ever tried to automate cross-platform technical writing, you know that the edge cases are where the real pain lives. I pushed 16 commits here, touching about 45 files. The diff was pretty wild: +6,926 additions and -4,289 deletions. That net positive tells part of the story, but the deletions represent me ripping out brittle logic that just wasn't cutting it. Hardening the Orchestrator The biggest win was a massive fix to make the publish state durable and the orchestrator resilient. In the previous iteration, if a network request to an API (like Dev.to) failed halfway through a multi-platform push, the state was... let's just say "vague." I spent a lot of time in src ensuring that the orchestrator can now pick up where it left off. I also documented the published-flag semantics and re-run resilience in the README. It sounds like a small thing, but knowing that a re-run won't accidentally double-post your article is a huge weight off my mind. I also spent some time on the "boring but important" stuff. I normalized how tags are handled to make them safer across different platforms and implemented a much stricter resolution for cover images. If a local image is required but missing, the tool now

Spanlens is an open-source (MIT) LLM observability platform that lets developers monitor every call their application makes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini, Mistral, OpenRouter, Azure OpenAI, or a local Ollama model. Integration takes one line: swap your client's baseURL to the Spanlens proxy, or run "npx @spanlens /cli init" and the wizard rewrites your code automatically. From that moment, every request is recorded with its model, token counts, latency, cost, and full prompt and response body, with streaming responses reconstructed automatically. The dashboard turns that raw log into operational insight. Cost tracking breaks spend down per request, per model, and per end user, and parses prompt-cache tokens separately so you see real cache savings rather than sticker price. Agent tracing visualizes multi-step workflows as Gantt waterfalls and node-and-edge graphs, highlighting the critical path so you can find the slowest dependency chain in a fan-out. Anomaly detection flags 3-sigma deviations in latency, cost, or error rate against a rolling 7-day baseline with root-cause hints. Alerts on budget, error rate, and p95 latency are delivered to Email, Slack, or Discord. Spanlens goes beyond passive logging. A regex-based PII and prompt-injection scanner inspects request and response bodies and can block injections at the proxy. The savings engine spots calls that match a cheaper model's profile (for example, a gpt-4o call that looks like a classification task) and estimates the monthly saving from switching. Prompt versioning with A/B experiments compares versions on latency, cost, and error rate using Welch's t-test for statistical significance, and an LLM-as-judge evaluation framework (judge with OpenAI, Anthropic, or Gemini) scores outputs against rubric anchors, with human agreement measured by Pearson r or Cohen's kappa. Reusable datasets power offline evals and regression checks.

One question I get surprisingly often is: "How do you manage thousands of AI prompts without losing track of them?" The answer is simple. I don't treat prompts as conversations. I treat them as reusable software assets. Over the years, I've created prompt libraries across multiple AI projects, books, research initiatives, and client work. That means managing well over 10,000 prompts covering everything from Python development and AI agents to content generation and workflow automation. If you're still storing prompts in random ChatGPT conversations, you're making life much harder than it needs to be. Here's the system that works for me. Stop Thinking of Prompts as Temporary Most people write a prompt, get an answer, and move on. That's fine for casual use. But builders rarely solve the same problem only once. If you find yourself writing: API documentation SQL queries FastAPI endpoints Docker configurations Code reviews Git commit messages ...you're probably solving recurring problems. Recurring problems deserve reusable prompts. My Folder Structure Instead of organizing prompts by AI tool, I organize them by purpose. For example: AI-Prompts/ │ ├── Python/ │ ├── FastAPI │ ├── Django │ ├── Flask │ └── Automation │ ├── JavaScript/ │ ├── React │ ├── Node.js │ └── TypeScript │ ├── DevOps/ │ ├── Docker │ ├── Kubernetes │ └── GitHub Actions │ ├── AI/ │ ├── RAG │ ├── Agents │ ├── MCP │ └── Prompt Engineering │ └── Documentation/ This mirrors how software projects are organized. Finding a prompt takes seconds. Every Prompt Has Metadata A prompt isn't just text. It's documentation. Each prompt in my library includes: Category: Purpose: Model: Input: Expected Output: Version: Last Updated: For example: Category: FastAPI Purpose: Generate CRUD endpoints Model: GPT-4o Expected Output: Production-ready FastAPI code Six months later, I know exactly why that prompt exists. I Version My Prompts Developers version code. Why not prompts? For example: FastAPI_CRUD_v1.md FastAPI_CRUD_v

For decades, developers were judged by one thing: How much code they could write. The best programmers wrote faster. Debugged faster. Built faster. That era is ending. The next generation of developers won't spend most of their time writing code. They'll spend it directing AI. Welcome to the age of the AI Orchestrator. The Evolution of Software Development Software development has always evolved. First, developers wrote machine code. Then came assembly. Then high-level languages. Then frameworks. Then cloud platforms. Then DevOps. Each evolution removed repetitive work and let developers focus on bigger problems. AI is simply the next step. But this time, it isn't replacing a tool. It's becoming a teammate. Coding Is Becoming a Smaller Part of the Job Building software isn't just writing code. A typical project includes: Understanding requirements Researching documentation Designing architecture Writing code Reviewing code Debugging Testing Writing documentation Deploying applications Monitoring production Fixing incidents Only one of those is coding. Everything else is coordination and decision-making. That's where AI is changing the game. From Programmer to Orchestrator Think about how modern teams work. A tech lead rarely writes every line of code. Instead, they: Assign work. Review solutions. Provide feedback. Make architectural decisions. Remove blockers. Developers are beginning to work with AI in much the same way. Instead of writing every function, they'll: Define the goal. Provide the right context. Choose the right tools. Review AI-generated code. Run tests. Improve weak areas. Approve the final result. The value shifts from typing code to guiding its creation. What Does an AI Orchestrator Do? An AI orchestrator doesn't ask one question and accept one answer. They manage a workflow. For example: Break a large project into smaller tasks. Give each AI the context it needs. Decide when to retrieve documentation. Decide when to search the codebase. Ask AI to g

Google added two new models to the Gemini API today: Nano Banana 2 Lite (image generation) and Gemini Omni Flash (video generation + editing). Neither is the Gemini 3.5 Pro release people have been waiting for, so it's easy to miss. Here's what's actually in them. TL;DR Nano Banana 2 Lite: gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image = text-to-image in ~4s, $0.034/1K images Gemini Omni Flash: gemini-omni-flash-preview = video gen + conversational editing, $0.10/sec Both are built to be chained: generate an image fast, then animate it into video Neither model is positioned as a quality upgrade = both are cost/speed plays Nano Banana 2 Lite Model ID: gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image Text-to-image output in about 4 seconds $0.034 per 1K-resolution image Positioned as the direct replacement for the original Nano Banana ( gemini-2.5-flash-image ) - if you're on that model, this is a drop-in upgrade Available in Google AI Studio, Gemini API, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, and consumer surfaces (Search AI Mode, Gemini app, Photos, NotebookLM, Flow, Google Ads) Gemini Omni Flash Model ID: gemini-omni-flash-preview Public preview in Google AI Studio and the Gemini API Conversational editing - refine a generated video using plain-language instructions instead of re-prompting from zero Multimodal referencing - combine text, image, and video inputs to keep a scene consistent $0.10 per second of video output (same rate as Veo 3.1 Fast) Known limitations right now Generations capped at 10 seconds No audio reference uploads yet No scene extension yet Video references under 3 seconds are accepted by the API schema but not correctly processed yet Character consistency across scene changes/pans still has rough edges Google says longer durations are coming. The part worth paying attention to: chaining them Generate an image with Nano Banana 2 Lite (fast, cheap) Pass that image as a reference into Omni Flash Omni Flash animates it into a video Both models are optimized for throughput and cost, not for to

At the beginning of June I started a “ Claude withdrawal ” challenge. The plan was to run MiniMax 3 for a month, to see if I can get the same level of quality, but at 5x less the price. Until then, Claude Code was my main driver, with MiniMax on the backup, for when I was running out of quota, or sometimes for code review. The monthly bill for Claude was $100 on the Max plan, whereas for MiniMax I would pay $20 for the Token plan. All in all, it seemed like an interesting experiment. Then, half way through the challenge, Grok came into the picture. I got a very interesting offer at $35 for 3 months, then $35/month. But Grok has something neither Claude, nor MiniMax can give me out of the shelf: video and image generations. The only unknown was if switching from Claude Code to Grok will still maintain the same coding power. So I instantly took the offer, and did whatever I had to do to understand if this was the right path. And here comes the “whatever I had to do”, in plain technical terms. Switching from Claude Code to Grok – the Actual Steps The switch itself was interesting because I didn’t want to lose the Claude Code interface. I like the harness. The way it works with my codebase, the commands, the flow. So I used a helper called cliproxyapi . It’s a small proxy that sits between the Claude Code client and whatever model you point it at. You run it locally, tell it to forward requests to Grok’s API instead of Anthropic’s. Then you launch Claude Code the same way you always do, but it talks to Grok under the hood. Here’s how it goes in practice. Step 1: Install the proxy. I used brew to install it, I’m on a Mac, and also because I wanted to have it started as a service. Step 2: Set two environment variables. One is the target API base URL, for Grok that’s something like https://api.x.ai . The other is your API key. "env" : { "ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL" : "http://localhost:8317" , "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY" : "cliproxy-local-key" } , Notice how we use “cliproxy-local-key”, be

Terminal-based AI agents have evolved considerably over the past few months, and several changes are significant enough that developers relying on these tools should be aware of them. Most notably, Google has begun retiring Gemini CLI for individual users in favor of Antigravity CLI — a closed-source successor that has drawn some pushback from the community that built out Gemini CLI's open-source ecosystem. Meanwhile, Claude Code has moved to the Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 models with a 1M-token context window, and OpenClaw, the open-source "always-on" agent, has grown into one of the most-starred projects on GitHub — alongside a documented CVE worth knowing about before deployment. I've just published an updated, fact-checked comparison covering: What actually changed with Gemini CLI's retirement, and what it means if you have scripts or CI/CD pipelines depending on it Claude Code's current model lineup, context window, and new Dynamic Workflows feature OpenClaw's architecture, extensibility via ClawHub, and the security considerations that come with deep system access A full feature-comparison table (cost, context window, open-source status, setup complexity) A practical case study walking through how all three tools can work together on a real project Would be curious to hear which of these you're using day-to-day, and whether the Gemini → Antigravity transition has affected your workflow. Full article here: Devlycan - Technology & Programming Insights Devlycan - Technology, programming, AI, lifestyle, and future trends—simple insights for the new digital generation. devlycan.com