标签：#tools

All-in-one AI assistant — chat, images, voice & market data Discussion | Link

A real planner for Google Tasks Discussion | Link

The agents were doing exactly what I told them to. That was the problem. I'd built a pipeline where AI agents could take a spec file, implement a feature, run the tests, review the result, and commit — without me writing a line of code. It mostly worked. Dozens of features shipped. But I kept reviewing the output and feeling like something was off. Not broken. Just subtly wrong in a way that was hard to name. I spent a while blaming the models. Then the prompts. Then the validation steps. Eventually I had to sit with the obvious: the agents were implementing exactly what I'd written. My specs were underspecified. The bottleneck was always me, at the planning stage. The thing most people throw away There's something that feels right about vibe coding. You're operating at the level of intent — describing what you want and letting the model handle the mechanics. That part is genuinely useful. But watch what most people do with the output: Traditional development: Source code → Compiler → Binary (keep the source; regenerate binary anytime) Vibe coding done wrong: Prompt → LLM → Generated code (delete the prompt; commit the code) You've shredded the source and carefully version-controlled the binary. The prompt — your structured description of what you wanted, why, and what "correct" meant — is the valuable artifact. The generated code is what compiles from it. When you discard the prompt and commit only the output, you've lost the thing that actually mattered. The practical consequence shows up six months later: you're staring at code you wrote and spending twenty minutes reverse-engineering your own intent. The spec would have been a thirty-second read. What a spec-driven pipeline is I built what I call an SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle) harness — a system where instead of writing code directly, you write a spec describing what needs to be built, and AI agents handle the implementation, testing, review, and documentation. The spec is the source. The code is what

Here's a thing that surprises people the first time: an email sent through the API does not carry the signature the user set up in Gmail or Outlook. Provider signatures live in the provider's compose UI, and a programmatic send bypasses that entirely, so a message your app sends goes out with no signature at all unless you add one. The Nylas Signatures API is how you add it: store an HTML signature once, then attach it to a send by ID, and the signature gets appended to the message for you. This post covers signatures from two angles: the HTTP API your backend calls, and the nylas CLI for creating and testing one from the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm setting a signature up. Nylas signatures are separate from provider signatures The first thing to get straight is that these are not the user's existing signature. Nylas doesn't sync the signature configured in Gmail, Outlook, or any other provider, and that provider signature is never applied to mail sent through the API. If a message your app sends needs a sign-off, you create that signature with this API and attach it explicitly; there's no inheriting it from the connected account. That separation is deliberate, because a programmatic send is a different context from a person typing in their webmail. It does mean the responsibility is yours: a user who connects their mailbox expecting their familiar signature to appear on app-sent mail won't get it automatically. Stored signatures are grant-scoped, living at /v3/grants/{grant_id}/signatures , so each connected account has its own set, and they're HTML, so a branded sign-off with a logo and links works the same as a plain one. Create a signature Creating a signature is a POST /v3/grants/{grant_id}/signatures with a name and an HTML body . The name is for you, a label to find it by later; the body is the markup that gets appended to outbound mail. The response returns the signature with its ID, which is w

Let AI block distractions for you when you need to lock in Discussion | Link

Claude Code is a genuinely powerful CLI coding agent. Its context window handling and multi-file reasoning set a high bar in 2026. But it comes with real constraints - it requires an Anthropic API key, charges per token, locks you into Claude models only, and its source code is closed. For developers running local-first workflows, working in air-gapped environments, or simply preferring auditable tooling, those limitations are dealbreakers. The good news: the open-source ecosystem has matured significantly. Nine production-ready alternatives now cover every major workflow pattern - from terminal-first pair programming to fully autonomous task execution. Why Open Source Matters for AI Coding Agents AI coding agents operate at a high level of system trust. They write files, run commands, and modify your repository. That makes transparency genuinely important - not just philosophically. Open-source licensing lets you read the code, audit its behavior, self-host without sending data to a third party, and customize it for your team's needs. Beyond trust, the practical advantages are real. Open-source agents are model-agnostic by design. They connect to whichever LLM you prefer - Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, or a local model via Ollama - letting you optimize for cost and capability on a per-task basis rather than being locked to one pricing tier. OpenCode - The Closest Open-Source Drop-In for Claude Code OpenCode has emerged as the de facto open-source answer to Claude Code in 2026, crossing 161,000 GitHub stars under an MIT license. It connects to over 75 LLM providers via Models.dev - including local Ollama models - and lets you switch providers mid-session. Internally it uses a dual-agent architecture: a Plan agent handles task decomposition while a Build agent executes changes. LSP integration brings symbol resolution into the terminal. Multi-session support lets you run parallel agents on the same project simultaneously. OpenAI Codex CLI - Auditable and Sandbox-Fir

AI COO that runs your team in tools you already use Discussion | Link

Describe your app and Blop tests it and repairs broken tests Discussion | Link

devtools #infrastructureascode #cdk #aws Index TL;DR Major Features Bedrock AgentCore — From Alpha to Stable Fn::GetStackOutput & Weak Cross-Stack References Validations Framework Performance Improvements CloudWatch PromQL Alarms CLI Improvements New L2 Constructs Service Enhancements Community Highlights Community Content & Resources How Can You Be Involved Hey CDK community! Here's an update covering everything that shipped in April and May 2026. TL;DR Bedrock AgentCore graduated to stable — production-ready AI agent infrastructure with semver guarantees. Cross-region references got a major upgrade with native Fn::GetStackOutput support and weak cross-stack references. The new Validations framework replaces policyValidationBeta1 with a richer plugin system. And file fingerprinting is ~33% faster with persistent asset caching. These features are available in aws-cdk-lib v2.247.0 through v2.257.0 and aws-cdk CLI v2.1116.0 through v2.1125.0. Full changelogs on GitHub Releases ( Library | CLI ). Major Features Bedrock AgentCore — From Alpha to Stable The @aws-cdk/aws-bedrock-agentcore-alpha module has graduated to aws-cdk-lib/aws-bedrockagentcore — stable APIs, semver guarantees, production-ready. If you've been building AI agents with Bedrock but held off on CDK because of the alpha label, it's time to upgrade. ( #37876 ) AgentCore provides the core infrastructure for building AI agents: runtimes, gateways, identity management, observability, and online evaluation. The Policy submodule remains in alpha as it continues to evolve rapidly. ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Bedrock AgentCore (Stable) │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │ │ Runtime │ │ Gateway │ │ Identity │ │ │ │ (L2) │ │ (L2) │ │ (L2) │ │ │ └────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ ▼ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ │ │Observa- │ │Online │ │ Policy Engine │ │ │

Convert UGC ads for TV Discussion | Link

Build agents & apps on top of your context with one prompt. Discussion | Link

Convert leads into customers with AI conversations Discussion | Link

Compose music with just your voice Discussion | Link

PDF work shows up in dev life more often than we'd like to admit — exporting docs, compressing build artifacts, merging client deliverables, or converting a spec sheet someone sent as a scanned PDF into something you can actually search. Paid suites like Adobe Acrobat are overkill for most of these one-off tasks. Here are 10 free, no-signup tools that get the job done, ranked roughly by how often you'll reach for them. 1. ToolTiny — PDF to Word/Excel/PowerPoint ToolTiny converts PDFs into editable DOCX, XLSX, or PPTX files directly in the browser, alongside the usual merge/split/compress/watermark/password toolkit. No account, no watermark on output. What's actually useful for dev workflows: it handles presentation-style PDFs (think exported slide decks or design-heavy one-pagers) reasonably well — most converters flatten these into a single unreadable text blob, but ToolTiny keeps the layout intact while still giving you editable text. Good for the "client sent a PDF, I need it as a Word doc by EOD" scenario. 2. Smallpdf The OG in this space. Smallpdf's PDF-to-Word conversion is excellent at preserving layout — it renders the page as a background image and overlays editable text boxes at the correct coordinates, which is why it handles complex layouts better than most. Free tier caps you at 2 tasks/day though. 3. iLovePDF Similar feature set to Smallpdf, slightly more generous free tier. Their "Organize PDF" drag-and-drop page reordering is one of the smoother UX implementations out there if you need to quickly reshuffle a multi-doc PDF before sending it out. 4. PDF24 A German tool that's been around forever and quietly does everything — OCR, forms, signing, comparison. Less polished UI than the others but the OCR accuracy on scanned technical docs is genuinely strong. 5. Stirling-PDF If you want something self-hosted, Stirling-PDF is the open-source answer. It's a Docker container you spin up yourself, giving you a full PDF toolkit (split, merge, compress, OCR, wa

Ask better questions, live on every call Discussion | Link

AI swim coach with Apple Watch tracking & smart workouts Discussion | Link

One-time passcodes are everywhere: sign up for a service, log in from a new device, confirm an action, and a six-digit code lands in your email. A human glances at it and types it in. An automated flow, a signup script, an end-to-end test, or an AI agent connecting to a third-party service, can't glance at anything. It has to pull the code out of the mailbox programmatically, and that's a surprisingly fiddly job: the code arrives seconds after a trigger, it's buried in a templated email, and every sender formats it differently. This post covers extracting verification codes from two angles: the nylas CLI , which does it for you in one command, and the Email API pattern you build when it's part of a larger flow. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I just need the code. Two ways to get the code There are two paths depending on what you're building. For terminal workflows, local testing, or scripting a login, the CLI has a dedicated nylas otp command that finds the latest code in a mailbox and hands it to you. For an application or an agent that reacts to incoming mail, you build the extraction into your own flow: catch the message when it arrives, pull the body, and parse the code out. The difference is who drives. The CLI is pull-based: you ask for the latest code when you need it. The API pattern is push-based: a webhook tells you a message arrived, and your code extracts the value as part of handling it. Both end at the same place, a string of digits you feed into whatever's waiting for it, but the CLI is the fast path for a developer and the API pattern is the durable path for a product. In practice you use both: the CLI to learn which sender and code format you're dealing with during development, then that same understanding baked into the application pattern for production. Grab the latest code from the CLI When you've just triggered a code and want it now, nylas otp get finds the most recent one in your default accoun

A webhook endpoint is a public URL sitting on the internet, and anything on the internet can send it a POST . If your app acts on whatever lands there, an attacker who guesses the URL can forge events: fake an inbound email, trigger a workflow, or feed your system garbage. The fix is to confirm two things before you trust a request, that you own the endpoint and that Nylas actually sent the payload, and both are built into how webhooks work. This post covers verifying webhooks from two angles: the HTTP mechanics your endpoint implements, and the nylas CLI for testing a signature without standing up a server. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I'm debugging a signature mismatch. Two layers of webhook trust There are two separate checks, and they happen at different times. The first is a one-time endpoint challenge: when you register or activate a webhook, Nylas sends your URL a request with a challenge value you echo back, proving you control the endpoint. The second runs on every notification afterward: each delivery carries a cryptographic signature you verify against a shared secret, proving the payload is genuine and wasn't tampered with. You need both because they defend against different things. The challenge stops you from accidentally registering an endpoint you don't own and confirms the URL is live. The signature stops anyone else from posting forged events to that URL once it's known. Skip the signature check and your public endpoint will trust any POST that reaches it, which is the most common webhook security mistake. Pass the endpoint challenge The first time you set up a webhook or flip one to active , Nylas sends a GET request to your endpoint with a challenge query parameter. Your endpoint has to return the exact value of that challenge in the body of a 200 OK response, within 10 seconds, or the webhook won't verify. It's a quick handshake that proves the URL is yours and reachable. // Express: echo the ch

Every Nylas request you make on a user's behalf needs one thing first: their permission. Before you can list a mailbox, send on someone's behalf, or read a calendar, the user has to authorize your application through their provider, and that authorization is what's called a grant. Doing the OAuth dance yourself means registering with Google and Microsoft separately, handling each provider's consent screen, token exchange, and refresh quirks. Hosted OAuth collapses that into one flow that works the same across every provider. This post walks through connecting an account from two angles: the HTTP API your web app uses in production, and the nylas CLI for connecting a test account from the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I need a grant to develop against. What a grant is A grant is an authenticated connection to a single user's account. When a user authorizes your application, Nylas stores the connection and hands you a grant_id , a stable identifier you pass on every subsequent request to act on that user's email, calendar, or contacts. The grant is the unit of access: one user who connected one mailbox is one grant, and everything you build addresses /v3/grants/{grant_id}/... . Keep two credentials distinct here. Your API key authenticates your application to Nylas and goes in the Authorization header on every request; the grant_id identifies which connected user that request acts on. The API key is yours and stays on your backend, while a grant_id is minted per user when they connect. The grant is also where provider differences disappear. A Gmail grant and a Microsoft grant have different OAuth scopes and token mechanics underneath, but once connected, both are just a grant_id you use the same way. That's the point of hosted OAuth: you run one flow, the user picks their provider, and you get back the same kind of identifier regardless of who hosts the mailbox. Hosted OAuth supports Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,

I'll be honest — I didn't set out to build a developer tool. I'm an engineer by trade. I build structural and forensic engineering software. C++, WinUI 3, heavy desktop apps. But a big chunk of my prototyping and internal tooling happens in Python — and every time I sat down to spin up a quick Python desktop app, I hit the same wall. Every launcher, every hot-reload tool, every dev cockpit I found wanted something from me. Install this. License that. Set up a virtual environment. Add five dependencies just to watch a file change. I just wanted to run my app, see it update when I changed something, and get back to work. So I built ILX Launcher. The rule I gave myself was simple: pure Python stdlib and tkinter. Nothing else. If it couldn't be done with what Python already ships with, I didn't need it. What came out of that constraint surprised me. No pip install. No virtual environment required. No licensing headaches. You clone it, you run it, it works. That's it. It's a developer cockpit for Python desktop apps — run, hot-reload, test, profile, and ship, all from one place. The kind of tool I wished existed six months ago. It's early. It's rough around the edges. But it works, and it's already saving me time every single day. If you've ever felt like your dev tooling was getting in the way of actually building — I'd love for you to try it and tell me what you think. 👉 github.com/ilxstudio/ILX-Launcher And if it saves you even five minutes — drop a ⭐ on the repo. It genuinely helps others find it.