标签：#r

GitHub announced on July 2, 2026 that Copilot CLI no longer needs a personal access token when it runs in GitHub Actions. Primary source: GitHub Changelog, July 2, 2026 . Deleting a secret is easy. Proving the workflow still works—and recovering without hurriedly pasting credentials back into YAML—is the useful part. This is an unexecuted migration template, not a report from a production repository. Make one reversible change First find every place the old secret enters the job, including reusable workflows: git grep -nE 'COPILOT_PAT|COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN|GH_TOKEN|github_pat' Record the workflow, job, pinned CLI version, permissions block, and previous known-good commit. Never print environment variables while debugging. Then remove only the PAT injection. Do not upgrade the runner and CLI in the same patch. jobs: copilot-check: permissions: contents: read - env: - COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.COPILOT_PAT }} steps: - uses: actions/checkout@<PINNED_COMMIT> - run: ./scripts/setup-copilot-cli.sh - run: ./scripts/run-bounded-check.sh The scripts are placeholders for repository-owned commands. “No PAT required” does not mean “no identity or permissions exist”; follow the current setup documentation and keep permissions explicit. Add a canary with two proofs The canary should show that the legacy token is absent and that the existing bounded task still satisfies its output contract. name : copilot-cli-auth-canary on : workflow_dispatch permissions : contents : read jobs : canary : runs-on : ubuntu-latest timeout-minutes : 10 steps : - uses : actions/checkout@<PINNED_COMMIT> - name : Verify legacy PAT is absent run : | test -z "${COPILOT_PAT:-}" test -z "${COPILOT_GITHUB_TOKEN:-}" - run : ./scripts/setup-copilot-cli.sh - run : copilot --version - run : ./scripts/run-bounded-check.sh Use a read-only, cheap task. “Fix whatever you find” is not a canary; it is a small deployment wearing a fake mustache. Define pass criteria before clicking Run: absent legacy variables, e

GitHub announced on July 10, 2026 that CodeQL 2.26.0 adds AI prompt-injection detection. Enabling a query is useful; owning a regression test is better. Primary source: GitHub Changelog, July 10, 2026 . The examples below are implementation templates, not results from a repository I tested. Model a path, not a phrase A useful fixture contains an untrusted source, prompt construction, and a model sink: security-fixtures/prompt-injection/ ├── positive/direct-flow.ts ├── positive/helper-flow.ts ├── negative/trusted-instruction.ts └── expected-alerts.json Do not test for the literal phrase ignore previous instructions . Static analysis needs a data-flow path. Preserve a supported SDK call from your production stack so CodeQL can recognize the sink. // Intentionally vulnerable fixture. Never ship this path. import { model } from " ./supported-client " ; declare function loadIssueBody ( id : number ): Promise < string > ; export async function summarize ( id : number ) { const untrusted = await loadIssueBody ( id ); return model . generate ({ system : " Summarize the issue " , user : untrusted , }); } Add a second positive case that passes the value through a helper. Then add a negative control where attacker input cannot select or alter the instruction. A function named sanitize() is not evidence of sanitization. Assert SARIF evidence Uploading SARIF alone does not create a regression gate. Commit the expected rule and fixture location: { "required" : [ { "ruleId" : "REPLACE_WITH_DOCUMENTED_RULE_ID" , "pathSuffix" : "positive/direct-flow.ts" } ], "forbiddenPathSuffixes" : [ "negative/trusted-instruction.ts" ] } Keep the rule ID as a placeholder until it is copied from the CodeQL 2.26.0 documentation or an observed SARIF result. Machine-facing identifiers should never be guessed. A small assertion can compare runs[].results[].ruleId and each physical location against this file. Fail when a required alert disappears or a negative fixture starts alerting. Do not assert the

Applied Computing has raised a $20M Series A to build a foundation AI model for the oil, gas and petrochemical industry.

Syntetica, a French startup that has developed a novel approach to recycling nylon, has already obtained big-name partners and investors.

Last week an AI-generated GPU kernel ran 18.71× faster than an optimized PyTorch baseline. The model—Fable 5—didn't just edge past the human implementation. It lapped it. Claude Opus 4.8 reached 14.4×. GLM-5.2 hit 11.14×. GPT-5.5 managed 4.34×. Fable's kernel was in a different tier entirely. The exciting read: AI is starting to improve the low-level machinery that makes AI itself cheaper and faster. Specialized performance work that once required rare expertise just got dramatically easier to explore. The uncomfortable read: what happens when the best implementation is also the one nobody on your team would have written—or can fully explain? That question is about to land on every engineering team that ships AI-generated code. The Benchmark Problem A benchmark shows the kernel ran fast under tested conditions. It doesn't show: How it behaves across different GPU hardware How it handles numerical edge cases What happens under months of production changes Whether it degrades gracefully when inputs shift The person who wrote it can't answer these questions either. The AI generated this code through a process that doesn't leave a reviewable chain of reasoning. There's no commit message that says "I chose this approach because X." So the reviewer's job just got harder—not easier. The Real Shift I've been watching this pattern across engineering teams this year. The argument is moving from "can AI generate working code?" to "can our org absorb generated code without breaking quality, morale, or judgment?" The GPU kernel story makes the tension concrete: One side says the code ran, it was measured, it won. Stop moving the goalposts. The other side says somebody still has to know where it can fail and take responsibility when it does. Both are right. AI can make implementation cheaper while making proof more expensive. Senior engineers may write less code but spend more time designing adversarial tests, checking assumptions, planning rollbacks, and deciding whether an impr

We open-sourced Tanso Core: a self-hosted monetization engine for B2B AI products. Usage metering, prepaid credits, entitlements, and Stripe billing in one Spring Boot service, with one property the rest of the stack doesn't have. Every metered event carries its cost. Repo: https://github.com/tansohq/tanso-oss The gap If you sell an AI product today, your monetization stack is split across two categories of tools that don't talk to each other. Billing platforms meter usage and generate invoices, but they have no idea what your inference costs. They can tell you a customer consumed 40,000 events. They cannot tell you whether you made money on them. LLM observability tools know your costs down to the token, but they don't bill anyone. They can tell you a feature costs $0.038 per run. They cannot connect that to what the customer paid for it. So margin per customer, the number that decides whether your pricing works, lives in neither system. Most teams reconstruct it in a spreadsheet, quarterly, if at all. Tanso keeps both sides in one ledger. Every event you ingest records what you billed and what it cost you: input and output tokens, model, provider. Margin per customer, per feature, per model is a query, not a project. What it allows Enforcement at ingestion, not at invoice time. Entitlement checks, usage caps, and credit limits are applied when the event comes in. If a customer is out of credits, the check fails now, not on a reconciliation job three weeks later. For AI products, where a runaway integration can burn real money in an afternoon, this is the difference between a limit and a suggestion. Credits as a first-class primitive. Prepaid credit pools per customer, with grants, deductions, expirations, and full transaction history. Most AI products end up selling some form of prepaid usage. Bolting that onto a subscription-shaped billing system is painful; here it's the core model. Stripe as a payment adapter, not the source of truth. Billing state lives in Tan

When I started learning programming, I believed my future as a developer depended on one thing: How...

Part 1 of "Multi-Agent Systems in Production: What They Don't Tell You" — a four-part series...