Markdown instructions are useful as durable context, but they do not replace programming. Their job is to keep intent out of a transient chat so both the developer and agent can revisit it. The actual constraints still belong in code: types, tests, linters, and dependency rules. Natural language can explain why a boundary matters; executable checks determine whether a change respects it. That feels more like a persistent layer around the programming workflow than a new programming language.
I agree. I keep agent memory off. In my experience, it remembers the wrong details and applies them in the wrong places. Project context should live in the repo, where the whole team can find it, review it, and correct it.
It should be treated as an explicit artefact of the codebase for Humans and Agents to work with.
I’ve never felt comfortable with how people use Claude Code or Codex as synonyms for Harness. It’s not wrong, it just reduces the harness to the least interesting part: the runtime. It’s the part you have the least control over. Most of us use what ever subscription makes most sense or whatever our company has settled on.
To me the interesting part of the harness is what you add on top, Brigitte Böckeler calls it the outer harness. I prefer the term Your Harness, your harness breaks down into two things: Skills and Loops.
Skills change what the agent knows and the loop changes how it works and checks itself. Both can mostly be encoded in Agent Skills
Your Harness should mostly agnostic to the agent you use.
In my experience, having worked at several large PSPs, it is Mastercard and Visa who are the morality police. Stripe are just enforcing the rules insisted on by them, and PayPal forgot about them 3 layoffs ago.
For me quickly scanning over the article, the fact that floating points were even presented as a possibility was an immediate red flag. And I pretty much stopped taking the rest of it seriously.
I don’t know if this take is just naive or dishonest…
building something people love can make you a billionaire, but most billionaires did not build something people love, and most people who’ve built something people love are not billionaires.
Golang is an amazing runtime with a bad language, one that conflates simple with easy. I view it the same way I view Java: a fine choice for a corporation, but nothing to love. Although Java’s gotten a lot better lately.
What do you mean? The whole point of Ruby on Rails is the rails way? Also the problems you are describing are not new and the community settled on adding some sort of service layer
I’ve always found Ruby to be way more readable, what keeps me using python is the depth of libraries is unmatched.
So unless you’re into burning tokens having AI generate untested libraries, I’d stick to using the most idiomatic tool for the problem you are tackling.