Once you run more than one agent in a loop, you inevitably recreate distributed systems problems: message ordering, retries, partial failure, etc.
Most agent frameworks pretend these don’t exist. Some of them address those problems partially. None of the frameworks I've seen address all of them.
Would be interesting to see alternative scoring besides “tests pass”, e.g. diff size, abstraction depth added/removed, or whether the solution introduces new modules/dependencies. That would allow to see if “unmergeable” PRs correlate with simple structural signals.
If both sides refactor the same function into multiple smaller ones (extract method) or rename it, can Weave detect that as a structural refactor, or does it become “delete + add”? Any heuristics beyond name matching?
One thing that seems under-discussed in this space is the shift from verifying programs to verifying generation processes.
If a piece of code is produced by an agent loop (prompt -> tool calls -> edits -> tests), the real artifact isn’t just the final code but the trace/pipeline that produced it.
In that sense verification might look closer to: checking constraints on the generator (tests/specs/contracts), verifying the toolchain used by the agent, and replaying generation under controlled inputs.
That feels closer to build reproducibility or supply-chain verification than traditional program proofs.
With packages like this (lots of cores, multi-chip packaging, lots of memory channels), the architecture is increasingly a small cluster on a package rather than a monolithic CPU.
I wonder whether the next bottleneck becomes software scheduling rather than silicon - OS/runtimes weren’t really designed with hundreds of cores and complex interconnect topologies in mind.
That’s fair - strict determinism isn’t possible in the traditional sense. I was thinking more along the lines of bounded reproducibility.
If the model, parameters, system prompt, and toolchain are pinned, you might not get identical output, but you can constrain the space of possible diffs.
It reminds me a bit of how StrongDM talks about reproducibility in their “Digital Twin” concept - not bit-for-bit replay, but reproducing the same observable behavior.
I noticed in the README that each commit message includes the agent and model, which is a nice start toward reproducibility.
I’m wondering how deep you plan to go on environment pinning beyond that. Is the system prompt / agent configuration versioned? Do you record tool versions or surrounding runtime context?
My mental model is that reproducible intent requires capturing the full "execution envelope", not just the human prompt + model & agent names. Otherwise it becomes more of an audit trail (which is also a good feature) than something you can deterministically re-run.
Even a technically superior format struggles without that ecosystem.