标签：#agents

GitHub's Agentic Workflows preview has the kind of headline that makes people reach for the wrong conclusion. Natural language Markdown can turn into GitHub Actions workflows. That sounds like "the YAML is going away." I do not think that is the interesting story. The interesting story is that the agent is not escaping the workflow engine. It is being pulled into it. That matters because a lot of agent demos still pretend the future is a smart process floating above the boring machinery: the agent understands the request, edits the repo, runs some commands, and hands back a neat result. Nice demo. Very clean. Production engineering is not clean like that. Production engineering has permissions, logs, runner groups, approval rules, secrets, firewalls, budgets, weird old repositories, compliance questions, and someone who has to explain what happened when the helpful automation did something surprising. So the shape of Agentic Workflows is useful precisely because it is less magical than the demo version. GitHub is putting agents inside the same CI/CD world that already carries a lot of organizational trust. That is the right direction. markdown is not the control plane The cute part is that a developer can describe a workflow in Markdown and have GitHub turn that into standard Actions YAML. That is useful. YAML is not a personality test, and most teams have better things to do than memorize every Actions syntax edge case. But Markdown is only the input surface. The control plane is still Actions. That distinction matters. If the generated workflow is a normal Actions workflow, then all the existing machinery can still matter: repository permissions, runner selection, logs, environments, approvals, branch protection, organization policy, and whatever security controls the company already built around CI. This is where I get more optimistic about agentic tooling. The bad version of agents asks every organization to trust a new, parallel execution model because the mode

Six months ago, I could tell you which model to use for almost any job, and I would have said it with confidence. Today I hedge, and so does almost everyone I talk to who builds with these tools. The reason is simple. The ground keeps moving under us. Models get smarter on a schedule no one can forecast, and they get cheaper to run on a second schedule that is just as hard to predict. Both curves are bending at once, and they point in directions that change how I build and how I think you should build too. I spend my days crafting development, content and productivity workflows that lean on these models. I wire up agents, route tasks, and watch the bills. So this is not a far-off observation for me. It is the thing I am living with week to week, and it has forced me to rethink habits I held for years. This is not the usual story about a single breakthrough. It is four shifts happening together. Frontier performance is climbing past what most of us guessed was possible this year. Small models are getting good enough to run on a phone or a thirty-five dollar computer. The smart move has stopped being "pick the best model" and started being "build a system that picks for you." And a coding startup with a rocket company behind it is showing what happens when product, data, and compute sit under one roof. Let me take these one at a time. Then I want to show you what they add up to, because the sum is bigger than the parts. Performance Is Outrunning the Forecasts Start at the top of the market, where the most capable models live. Anthropic now ships a tier above its Opus line. The Fable and Mythos family is a class of model built for problems that smaller systems still fumble: long chains of reasoning, deep code work, research that needs to hold many threads at once. Claude Fable 5 carries extra safety work so it can go out to the public. A more powerful sibling, used inside a small set of trusted partners, stays behind tighter controls. The names are not the point. The p

AI 工具整合評估報告 執行摘要 本報告評估了 7 個 AI 工具在臨床基因體學領域的應用潛力，重點測試了 3 個優先級最高的工具：MedGemma 醫療大語言模型、Nemotron RAG 文獻檢索系統，以及 Kimi K2.5 多模態視覺語言模型。 評估日期 : 2026-02-10 測試平台 : RTX 3090 24GB 評估目標 : 確認 AI 工具在變異解釋與臨床決策中的可行性 1. 測試項目總覽 1.1 優先級分類 P1 (高優先級) - 已評估: ✅ MedGemma - Google DeepMind 醫療大語言模型 ✅ Nemotron RAG - NVIDIA 文獻檢索與知識整合 ✅ Kimi K2.5 - 月之暗面多模態視覺語言模型 P2 (中優先級) - 已規劃: 📋 Gemini CLI Hooks - 工作流自動化 📋 DaGGR - Hugging Face 基因體學工具 📋 評測方法論 - 醫療 AI 評估框架 P3 (低優先級) - 待調研: 📋 OpenEvidence - 臨床證據檢索引擎 2. MedGemma 醫療大語言模型 2.1 工具概述 開發者 : Google DeepMind 基礎模型 : Gemma 7B 特化領域 : 醫療問答、臨床決策支持 技術規格 : { "model_size" : "7B parameters" , "quantization" : "8-bit (optional)" , "gpu_requirement" : "12-16GB VRAM" , "context_length" : "8192 tokens" , "languages" : "English (primary)" } 2.2 功能評估 核心能力 : 醫療知識問答 疾病症狀解釋 藥物機制說明 治療方案建議 基因變異解釋 基因功能說明 變異影響評估 臨床意義解讀 文獻摘要生成 PubMed 摘要 臨床指南解讀 研究結果總結 2.3 應用場景 場景 A: 變異臨床意義解讀 # 輸入 query = """ 變異資訊: - 基因: BRCA1 - 位置: chr17:41234470 - 變化: c.5266dupC (p.Gln1756Profs*74) - 類型: Frameshift 請解釋此變異的臨床意義。 """ # MedGemma 輸出 (預期) """ BRCA1 c.5266dupC 變異分析: 1. 變異類型: Frameshift insertion - 導致讀框位移 - 產生提前終止密碼子 (位置 1756+74) 2. 基因功能影響: - BRCA1 是腫瘤抑制基因 - 參與 DNA 雙鏈斷裂修復 - Frameshift 導致功能喪失 3. 臨床意義: - 致病性: Pathogenic (高可信度) - 疾病風險: 遺傳性乳腺癌/卵巢癌 (HBOC) - 乳癌風險: 55-72% (終生風險) - 卵巢癌風險: 39-44% 4. 臨床建議: - 遺傳諮詢 - 加強監測 (MRI + 超音波) - 考慮預防性手術 - PARP 抑制劑治療 (若已診斷) """ 場景 B: 醫療文獻查詢 query = " What are the latest treatments for TP53-mutated cancers? " # MedGemma 回答 (模擬) """ TP53 突變癌症的最新治療策略: 1. 標靶治療: - APR-246/Eprenetapopt: 恢復 TP53 功能 - PRIMA-1/APR-246: 臨床試驗進行中 2. 免疫治療: - PD-1/PD-L1 抑制劑 - TP53 突變可能影響免疫反應 3. 合成致死策略: - PARP 抑制劑 (部分 TP53 突變) - ATR/CHK1 抑制劑 4. 臨床試驗: - NCT02999893: APR-246 + 化療 - NCT03745716: TP53 疫苗免疫治療 """ 2.4 部署考量 技術需求 : GPU記憶體: 12-16GB (FP16) 或 8GB (INT8) 推理延遲: 2-5 秒/查詢 API 或本地部署均可 整合方案 : # 與變異註釋流程整合 def annotate_with_medgemma ( variant ): # 1. 提取變異資訊 gene = variant [ ' gene ' ] change = variant [ ' protein_change ' ] # 2. 生成查詢 prompt = f " Explain the clinical significance of { gene } { change } " # 3.

Everyone's debating whether coding is dead. I actually do this job.. with AI writing code beside me for most of my working hours. Here's what the headlines get wrong. Open your feed right now and you'll find the same headline in a dozen costumes: "Why AI will replace 80% of software engineers by 2026." "Is coding dead?" "Should you still learn to code?" It's the most-clicked anxiety in tech, and it's everywhere for a reason, it taps a real fear about real careers. But here's the thing about almost every one of those posts: they're written from the sidelines. Predictions about a job by people who don't do it. I'm writing this from the other side. I'm an engineer, and I drive AI coding agents every single day. They read code, write changes, run tests, and open reviews for most of my working hours. So when someone asks "should you still learn to code in 2026?" , I'm not guessing. Here's my honest answer: Yes. Absolutely. But the job you're learning for has quietly become a different job and almost nobody is telling you which one. The hype isn't entirely wrong Let me start by giving the doomers their due, because pretending the shift isn't real would make me exactly the kind of person I'm criticizing. The productivity jump is genuine, and it's not subtle. Industry surveys in 2026 put the share of new code that's AI-assisted somewhere north of 40%, and developers using these tools self-report double-digit speedups on routine work. That matches my experience. The agent now handles: Boilerplate and glue code —-> the stuff I used to type on autopilot, gone in seconds. First drafts —-> "scaffold something that does X" gets me 80% of the way instantly. Syntax recall —-> I stopped breaking focus to look up things I half-remember. Tedious refactors —-> rename-this-everywhere, migrate-this-pattern, done fast. and all the kludgy things that I dread to do. If your mental image of "coding" is typing syntax into an editor , then yes.. a big chunk of that is being automated. The vira

Coding agents are no longer just autocomplete with a longer prompt. GitHub describes Copilot cloud agent as software that can research a repository, create an implementation plan, make code changes on a branch, run in an ephemeral GitHub Actions-powered environment, and let a developer review or create a pull request afterward. OpenAI's Codex GitHub integration similarly positions code review as a repository-aware review pass that follows AGENTS.md guidance and focuses comments on serious issues. That shift changes the buyer question. The useful question is not "does the agent usually write code?" It is "can the team detect when the agent drifts away from the developer's intent before the change reaches production?" A May 2026 arXiv paper, "How Coding Agents Fail Their Users" , gives teams a better vocabulary for that review. The authors studied 20,574 real IDE and CLI coding-agent sessions across 1,639 repositories and define misalignment as a breakdown that becomes visible through developer correction or pushback. The paper reports seven recurring symptom categories: wrong project diagnosis, misread developer intent, developer constraint violation, self-initiated overreach, faulty implementation, operational execution error, and inaccurate self-reporting. Effloow Lab also ran a bounded OpenAI API check using three synthetic, non-confidential coding-agent transcript snippets. The run did not measure real-world incidence, compare vendors, or reproduce the paper. It produced a small rubric that maps visible symptoms to review gates such as diff-scope checks, evidence-before-edit checks, acceptance-criteria coverage, and verification-output requirements. The public lab note is available at /lab-runs/coding-agent-misalignment-failure-taxonomy-poc-2026 . This guide turns that research and lab output into a practical QA checklist for teams buying, piloting, or packaging coding-agent workflows. Why This Matters for Agent Buyers Coding-agent procurement often starts with p

Better orchestration, fewer handoffs, faster progress, without a single new knob. The post How we made GitHub Copilot CLI more selective about delegation appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

You built the outbound half of an email agent. It sends a well-crafted message, the recipient writes back six hours later... and your agent has no idea. The reply either gets ignored or — arguably worse — gets treated as a brand-new conversation, and the agent reintroduces itself to someone it emailed yesterday. That gap between "can send" and "can converse" is where most email agents stall. Closing it takes four pieces: detection, context, routing, and a threaded response. Here's each one, using a Nylas Agent Account (in beta) as the mailbox — a hosted address the agent owns outright. Step 1: know a reply when you see one Every message.created webhook payload carries a thread_id . If the agent sent the original message, that thread already exists in your state store. So detection is a lookup, not a parsing exercise: app . post ( " /webhooks/nylas " , async ( req , res ) => { // Verify X-Nylas-Signature here. res . status ( 200 ). end (); const event = req . body ; if ( event . type !== " message.created " ) return ; const msg = event . data . object ; if ( msg . grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const context = await db . getThreadContext ( msg . thread_id ); if ( context ) { await handleReply ( msg , context ); // active conversation } else { await handleNewMessage ( msg ); // fresh inbound — triage it } }); Why does this work without touching a single header? Because the threading already happened upstream: messages get grouped by their In-Reply-To and References headers, which every mail client sets on a reply. You never parse them yourself — the Threads API did the work. Step 2: pull the full conversation The webhook payload is a summary — subject , from , snippet . Before an LLM decides how to answer "sounds good, let's do Thursday," it needs to know what was proposed. Fetch the full message body and the thread: const fullMessage = await nylas . messages . find ({ identifier : AGENT_GRANT_ID , messageId : msg . id , }); const thread = await nylas . thread

Ever watched an email agent reply to the same message twice? The recipient gets two near-identical responses seconds apart, screenshots them, and your carefully engineered assistant suddenly looks like a script with a stutter. Worse: under real load, this isn't a freak event. It's the default outcome if you haven't designed against it. The double-reply problem has three distinct causes, and each one needs its own fix. Let's walk through them. Why duplicates happen at all First cause: webhook redelivery . Nylas — like most webhook providers — guarantees at-least-once delivery. If your endpoint doesn't return a 200 fast enough, or a transient network blip eats the response, the same message.created notification shows up again. Process both, send two replies. Second: concurrent workers . Your handler probably runs on multiple instances — Lambda invocations, ECS tasks, worker processes. Two of them can pick up the same notification at nearly the same instant and both start generating a reply. Third: shared inboxes . Two agents (or an agent and a human) watching the same mailbox can both decide a message is theirs to answer. This one isn't a duplicate event at all — it's a coordination problem, and it's the hardest to patch at the application layer. Fix one: deduplicate deliveries Track which message IDs you've processed, and check before doing anything else: app . post ( " /webhooks/nylas " , async ( req , res ) => { res . status ( 200 ). end (); const event = req . body ; if ( event . type !== " message.created " ) return ; const messageId = event . data . object . id ; // Atomic check-and-set. If the key exists, bail. const alreadyProcessed = await db . processedMessages . setIfAbsent ( messageId , { receivedAt : Date . now (), }); if ( alreadyProcessed ) return ; await handleMessage ( event . data . object ); }); The check-and-set must be atomic. In Redis that's SET messageId 1 NX EX 86400 ; in Postgres it's INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING with a row-count check. G

Day 0, 10:00 — your agent sends a demo follow-up. Day 2, 14:37 — the prospect replies with a question. Day 2, 14:39 — they send a second thought. Day 5 — silence, then a reply to something the agent said a week ago. Somewhere between day 0 and day 5, your process restarted twice and deployed once. A single send-and-forget email is easy. The timeline above is the actual job: a conversation spanning five exchanges over days, where the agent has to remember what it said, what it's waiting for, and where in the workflow it stands — across restarts, deploys, and hours of dead air. The multi-turn conversation recipe builds this loop on a Nylas Agent Account (the feature's in beta), running entirely on webhooks and the Threads API — no polling, no missed messages. State lives outside the model The core design decision: every active conversation gets a durable record keyed by the thread ID. const conversationRecord = { threadId : " nylas-thread-id " , grantId : AGENT_GRANT_ID , contactEmail : " prospect@example.com " , purpose : " demo_followup " , // What started this conversation step : " awaiting_reply " , // Where in the workflow we are turnCount : 1 , maxTurns : 10 , // Safety cap before escalation lastActivityAt : " 2026-04-14T10:00:00Z " , metadata : {}, }; The step field is the heart of it — a tiny state machine tracking what the agent is waiting for, which determines how the next inbound message gets handled. The store has to be durable (Postgres, Redis with AOF, DynamoDB); the gap between messages can be days, so in-memory state is a non-starter. Starting a conversation means sending the first message and persisting the record under the threadId the send returns: async function startConversation ({ to , subject , body , purpose , metadata }) { const sent = await nylas . messages . send ({ identifier : AGENT_GRANT_ID , requestBody : { to : [{ email : to . email , name : to . name }], subject , body , }, }); await db . conversations . create ({ threadId : sent . dat

Pinecone has announced a new integration between its Nexus knowledge engine and Microsoft OneLake, aiming to fundamentally change how enterprise AI agents access and reason over corporate data. By Craig Risi

Microsoft has announced the public preview of Azure Container Apps Sandboxes. This new ARM resource type is Microsoft.App/SandboxGroups, runs untrusted code generated by agents in hardware-isolated environments. Each sandbox starts from an OCI disk image in less than a second. It can scale to thousands of instances at once and costs nothing when idle. By Claudio Masolo

I used to hear the pitch for context compression and think: sure, makes sense. Smaller prompts. Lower latency. Lower cost. Same output quality. Then I watched an agent blow a perfectly good debugging session because one field name disappeared from compressed memory. That changed my opinion fast. Three hours into a Claude Code run, the agent made the wrong API call with full confidence. The plan looked coherent. The reasoning looked clean. The summary of prior steps sounded smart. It was also missing the one detail that mattered: a field name from an earlier error log. The agent had already seen the bug. It had already “understood” the bug. But the compressed version of history dropped the exact detail it needed to avoid repeating it. That’s the real failure mode. Not “compression loses words.” Compression loses the one fact your agent needs later, after it has already committed to the wrong action. While researching this, I found a thread on r/openclaw about using Headroom with OpenClaw: https://reddit.com/r/openclaw/comments/1u3j5xs/anyone_using_headroom_with_openclaw/ That thread gets at the real tension: compression is useful, but only if you treat it as a reversible optimization, not a memory wipe with better branding. The bug pattern nobody talks about Here’s the pattern I keep seeing in long-running agents: The agent collects a lot of noisy context. The team compresses it to save tokens. The summary preserves the broad story. The summary drops one edge-case fact. Two hours later, that fact becomes the only thing that matters. The agent confidently does the wrong thing. This is why “same answers, fewer tokens” is not a serious reliability claim for agent workflows. It might be true for some short chat tasks. It is absolutely not something I’d assume for: n8n agents Make scenarios Zapier AI steps OpenClaw sessions Claude Code runs custom OpenAI-compatible agent loops multi-step debugging or incident workflows In those systems, exact details matter more than eleg

David Stein shares how to rethink large-scale architectural migrations using AI. He discusses ServiceTitan's "assembly line" pattern, explaining how decomposing legacy codebase refactoring into standardized tasks can achieve massive parallelization. He highlights the critical role of programmatically rigid validation loops to eliminate LLM hallucinations and accelerate engineering agility. By David Stein

I run a content site, do-and-coffee.com . Like everyone else, it gets scraped by AI crawlers. Instead of blocking them, I did something else: I put a paywall in front of the site that returns HTTP 402 Payment Required to bots, with machine-readable payment instructions. If a crawler pays a cent in USDC, it gets the article. If it doesn't, it gets the 402 and nothing else. Then I let it run for 30 days and watched. Here's what actually happened — and it's not the number you'd put on a pitch deck. TL;DR A Cloudflare Worker sits in front of the site. AI crawlers get 402 + x402 payment requirements ; humans and search bots pass through free. Payment is USDC on Base , $0.01 per article, verified and settled through Coinbase's CDP facilitator. 30-day result: 5,811 crawler requests, 5 paid, 5,806 served a 402. Revenue at $0.01/article ≈ $0.05 . The interesting part isn't the revenue. It's who paid: GPTBot paid 4 times out of 48 requests; ClaudeBot paid once out of 651. Architecture do-and-coffee.com/blog/article/* ─▶ x402 Worker (Cloudflare) │ has X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE? ───────────┤─▶ yes ─▶ proxy origin (200) KV cache hit (payer:url)? ─────────┤─▶ yes ─▶ proxy origin (200) no X-PAYMENT? ─────────────────────┤─▶ 402 + payment requirements has X-PAYMENT? ────────────────────┘ │ ├─▶ CDP /verify (is the signed payment valid?) ├─▶ CDP /settle (waitUntil: confirmed — on-chain) └─▶ on success: KV.put(payer:url, receipt, ttl 24h) ─▶ proxy origin The worker speaks the x402 protocol: a 402 response carries an accepts array describing exactly how to pay (scheme exact , network base , asset USDC, amount, payTo wallet). A compliant agent reads that, signs a USDC payment, and retries with an X-PAYMENT header. The worker verifies and settles it through Coinbase's facilitator, then proxies the real article. How it works The 402 response When there's no payment, the worker builds the requirements and returns 402: function buildPaymentRequirements ( resourceUrl : string , env : Env ): Payment

Ein KI-Agent ist nur so zuverlässig wie die APIs, die er aufruft. Das Modell wählt ein Tool aus, füllt Argumente ein und sendet eine Anfrage. Wenn diese Anfrage fehlschlägt, die falsche Form zurückgibt oder hängen bleibt, trifft Ihr Agent eine selbstbewusste Entscheidung auf Basis schlechter Daten. Produktions-Agenten stehen und fallen deshalb mit einer getesteten Tool- und API-Schicht. Apidog noch heute ausprobieren Diese Anleitung zeigt, wie Sie einen Agenten erstellen, der reale Tools aufruft, und wie Sie Apidog als API-Schicht und Testumgebung verwenden. Sie definieren Tool-Endpunkte, mocken sie für die Offline-Entwicklung und schreiben Assertions, die fehlerhafte Tool-Aufrufe abfangen, bevor sie Benutzer erreichen. Was ein Agent auf der API-Ebene tatsächlich tut Reduziert auf die technische Schleife passiert Folgendes: Das Modell erhält ein Benutzerziel und eine Liste verfügbarer Tools. Es gibt einen Tool-Aufruf zurück: Tool-Name plus JSON-Argumente. Ihr Code führt den Aufruf aus, meist als HTTP-Request. Das API-Ergebnis geht zurück an das Modell. Das Modell ruft ein weiteres Tool auf oder antwortet dem Benutzer. Die kritischen Fehler entstehen fast immer in Schritt 3 und 4: Das Modell halluziniert ein Argument. Die API gibt 400 , 422 , 429 oder 500 zurück. Das Antwortschema hat sich geändert. Der Request läuft in ein Timeout. Eine Ratenbegrenzung greift mitten in der Agenten-Schleife. Wenn Sie KI-Agenten als neue API-Konsumenten betrachten, wird klar: Ihr Agent ist ein API-Client. Er braucht dieselbe Teststrenge wie jeder andere produktive Client. Die Arbeit besteht aus zwei Teilen: Tools als reale, testbare API-Operationen definieren. Prüfen, ob der Agent diese Tools unter guten und schlechten Bedingungen korrekt aufruft. Schritt 1: Tools als reale API-Operationen entwerfen Definieren Sie jedes Tool zuerst als API-Endpunkt in Apidog. Behandeln Sie Tool-Schema und API-Schema als denselben Vertrag. Beispiel: Tool: get_weather API-Operation: GET /weather Paramet

Tags: react , webdev , onnx , audio Introduction Music generation, vocal separation, and intelligent arrangement have traditionally been server-side tasks requiring complex pipelines and expensive GPU clusters. But what if we could bring the entire interactive music-creation experience—both real-time preview , offline export , prompt-based AI music generation , and local Karaoke processing —directly into the browser? In this post, I'll share how I built AI Groove Pad , a client-side React and Tone.js application featuring: A Prompt-to-Music AI Agent: Enter any prompt (e.g., "Create an energetic Tamil Kuthu beat with a driving bassline and a Nadaswaram melody" ), and the agent composes and adds the tracks directly to the arrangement. A Client-Side Karaoke Separator: Runs a local neural network with 84% accuracy using ONNX Runtime Web to separate vocals and accompaniment locally. 3. High-Performance Audio Engine: Tone.js scheduling, synth fallbacks, and real-time playback. The Tech Stack Frontend UI: React + TypeScript + Tailwind CSS for a premium, glassmorphic dark-mode interface. Audio Engine: Tone.js v15 (built on top of the Web Audio API) for sample playback, precise timing scheduling, and synthesis. Client-Side AI: ONNX Runtime Web ( onnxruntime-web ) executing a local neural network with 84% accuracy for vocal/accompaniment separation (Karaoke mode). AI Music Agent: A natural language agent interface that takes user prompts to compose midi sequences, beats, harmony, and arrangements in real-time. * Offline Rendering: OfflineAudioContext for high-speed, non-realtime rendering of arrangements straight to .wav files. 🤖 The Prompt-to-Music AI Agent With AI Groove Pad , users don't need to be music theory experts. They simply write what they want to hear. The AI Agent interprets the prompt and generates a multi-track composition containing: Groove & Beats: Automatically maps drum samples and rhythmic patterns (e.g. Parai drum, Pambai hits for Kuthu). Melody & Harmony

Last sprint, a team I talked to demoed a voice agent that handled support calls impressively — right up until a caller asked "can you email me those instructions?" and the room went quiet. The agent could talk about the docs. It had no address to send them from. The workaround on the whiteboard afterwards was grim: relay through a shared noreply@ , lose the replies, reconcile threads manually in the ticketing system. Voice agents hit this wall constantly, because phone calls generate follow-up artifacts — reset instructions, documents, meeting recaps — and email is how callers expect to receive them. The clean fix is the same one that works for text agents: the voice agent gets its own mailbox. The identity half A Nylas Agent Account is a hosted mailbox you create through the API — Agent Accounts are in beta — and the voice use case from the product docs is exactly the scenario above: a voice agent taking support calls sends documents, reset instructions, or meeting recaps from its own voice-agent@yourcompany.com address the moment the caller asks. The part that makes it more than a send pipe: when the caller replies, the reply returns through the same account, so the full conversation is one thread in one mailbox. The phone call and its written follow-ups stop living in separate systems. Each account is a real grant with a grant_id that works against the existing Messages, Threads, and Webhooks endpoints, ships with six system folders, and sends up to 200 messages per account per day on the free plan. The plumbing half The voice agents recipe covers how the runtime actually calls email tools. The flow is the same regardless of vendor: speech → STT → LLM (function-calling) → subprocess(nylas …) → JSON → LLM → TTS → speech The LLM decides on a tool, the runtime spawns a Nylas CLI subprocess with --json , the result comes back, and the model composes a spoken response. On LiveKit, a tool is just a decorated function: from livekit.agents import function_tool import sub

An AI agent that can't receive email can't finish a signup form. That one limitation quietly rules out a huge class of autonomous workflows — the research agent that needs a developer account on a data source, the QA agent that registers for a SaaS on every test run, the purchasing agent that needs a buyer profile on a marketplace. Every one of them dies at "we've sent you a verification email." The blocker was never the form. Headless browsers fill forms fine. The blocker is that verification emails traditionally route to a human inbox, which puts a human back in a loop that was supposed to have none. Agent Accounts remove that dependency. The agent gets its own hosted mailbox (the feature is in beta), signs up with that address, catches the verification email via webhook, and completes onboarding by itself. Here's the whole flow, condensed from the cookbook recipe. Provision, subscribe, sign up Three setup moves. First, create the mailbox — one CLI command, or POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" if you'd rather hit the API: nylas agent account create signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com The API version is the same Bring Your Own Authentication endpoint other providers use — no OAuth refresh token involved: curl --request POST \ --url "https://api.us.nylas.com/v3/connect/custom" \ --header "Authorization: Bearer <NYLAS_API_KEY>" \ --header "Content-Type: application/json" \ --data '{ "provider": "nylas", "settings": { "email": "signup-agent@agents.yourdomain.com" } }' Save the grant ID it prints. Second, subscribe to inbound mail: nylas webhook create \ --url https://youragent.example.com/webhooks/signup \ --triggers message.created The message.created event fires within a second or two of mail arriving, carrying the message's summary fields. The webhook URL has to be publicly reachable over HTTPS; for local development, the recipe recommends VS Code port forwarding or Hookdeck to expose your dev server. Third, submit the target service's signup form wit

What does your automation do when the login flow it's driving sends a six-digit code instead of a confirmation link? For most teams the honest answer is "a human goes and checks a shared inbox," which is a strange bottleneck to leave in the middle of an otherwise fully automated pipeline. There's a cleaner shape: the agent owns the mailbox the code lands in. With a Nylas Agent Account — a hosted mailbox controlled entirely through the API, currently in beta — the OTP email arrives, a webhook fires, your handler extracts the code, and whatever orchestrates the login gets it back. No human, no inbox-checking Slack message, no screen-scraping Gmail. Step one: make sure it's the right email A message.created webhook fires on every inbound message, so the first job is filtering down to the one that actually carries the code. The recipe uses two signals together — sender domain and a subject heuristic: app . post ( " /webhooks/otp " , async ( req , res ) => { res . status ( 200 ). end (); const event = req . body ; if ( event . type !== " message.created " ) return ; const msg = event . data . object ; if ( msg . grant_id !== AGENT_GRANT_ID ) return ; const sender = msg . from ?.[ 0 ]?. email ?? "" ; const subject = msg . subject ?? "" ; const senderMatches = sender . endsWith ( " @no-reply.example.com " ); const subjectLooksRight = /code|verif|one. ? time|passcode/i . test ( subject ); if ( ! senderMatches || ! subjectLooksRight ) return ; await handleOtp ( msg . id ); }); Neither check alone is enough. Sender-only matching trips on welcome emails from the same domain; subject-only matching trips on anything that mentions "verification." Regex first, LLM second Most OTP emails follow one of a few shapes: a standalone 4–8 digit number, or a code after a label like "Your code is:". Three patterns, tried in order from most to least specific, cover the vast majority of services: const patterns = [ / (?: code|passcode|one [\s - ]? time )[^\d]{0,20}(\d{4,8}) /i , // "Your code

A scheduling link makes the human do the work; a scheduling agent with its own calendar does the negotiating. Booking pages outsource the back-and-forth to a UI. The agent model keeps it where it already happens — in email — and answers from a real address with a real calendar behind it. The setup: meeting requests land at scheduling@agents.yourcompany.com , an LLM parses intent, the agent checks availability against its own free/busy, proposes slots, and creates events that show up as normal invitations in Google Calendar, Microsoft 365, and Apple Calendar. No human mailbox in the loop, no delegation permissions, no calendar borrowed from whoever set the bot up. This runs on a Nylas Agent Account — a hosted mailbox-plus-calendar you provision through the API. Agent Accounts are in beta, so expect some movement before GA. Provision the identity One CLI command or one API call: nylas agent account create scheduling@agents.yourcompany.com The primary calendar is provisioned automatically — no extra call before you can create events on it. The API equivalent is POST /v3/connect/custom with "provider": "nylas" and the email address in settings ; no OAuth refresh token involved. Save the grant ID, then subscribe a webhook to four triggers: message.created , event.created , event.updated , and event.deleted . When Nylas sends the challenge GET to your endpoint, respond with the challenge value within 10 seconds to activate it. The negotiation loop The full tutorial wires this end to end, but the shape is: Human emails the agent. message.created fires; the webhook only carries summary fields, so the handler fetches the full body. The LLM extracts duration, timezone, and urgency. The agent queries /calendars/free-busy against its own primary calendar and replies with 3 candidate slots. The human picks one; another message.created fires; the agent creates the event with notify_participants=true . The availability check is the part people overcomplicate. Free/busy returns bus