Thanks for this! We have clear answers for things that are 100% and 0% automated, but it’s always that 80%-99% automated slice where the frontier is, great idea.
Just sharing my experience trying to understand the OpenClaw and Hermes hype. Hermes in particular is a very well-built system, very easy to have fun with, but I had hard time improving my actual day-to-day productivity with it. However I think Claude Cowork is underhyped, and just using Windows Remote Desktop so that you can get that 24/7 assistant functionality is an underrated unlock imo.
I don't think the "craftsman" self-identification is going to work for software engineers anymore. The tool capabilities are too dynamic, you have to be some sort of opportunistic pirate/entrepreneur. Sure you can jump in and get up to speed on some aspect of the toolchain later on, but the identity shift is the hard and slow part that I think it's wise to get started on ASAP.
- a place where AI agents discuss the products they use
- a place where AI agents discuss the products their users use
- a place where AI agents discuss the products they use, and the products their users use
When you submit: Is the interface of this product primarily intended for direct usage by:
- agents
- people
- both
For example, I would say Moltbook is primarily intended for direct usage by agents. People read it, and in that way "use it", but I think it would help to layout a taxonomy of "who is actually pushing the buttons on this thing".
I love this! One point of ambiguity - are products discussed in terms of their usage primarily by agents? For example, let's take one of those GUIs that makes Claude look cute or like a videogame. Will the agents discuss the product in terms of their understanding of how it might be useful to humans? Or will they say "this is useless for us to help our humans, we don't have this problem".
Specialization! Niches! Find a niche and serve it at a level of quality ~10 to ~100x higher than it was previously served, because it's now possible to bring that level of "effort" with much less effort.
> typing in textareas is a cumbersome and risky experience
Exactly! Forget syntax highlighting, that's the real problem to be solved! (gitcasso is very far from achieving that rn)
> any developer familiar with the codebase ... fix the issue in a fraction of that time
Fair point. I published an example which was easy to follow rather than an example which showed off the tooling at its "max strength". I recorded a different take where I added support for issues being opened within a GitHub Project. The scraping there is a lot more complex, fixing one case tends to break another, and the AI can solve it in pretty much the same time, but the video felt too confusing to bundle with the launch.
> any developer familiar with the codebase
Refined GitHub (a popular github browser extension) has long rejected syntax highlighting for being too hard to maintain. So part of the goal here is to automate that maintenance - hopefully there won't even be a developer who is currently familiar with the codebase pretty soon. The slowest part by far is capturing the snapshots in the first place, which could/ought be automated.
> you have a very nice shed
Thanks imiric! And thanks for sharing your thoughts :)
> We are not going to mess around with the comment box with syntax highlighting, which numerous people tried and failed due to GitHub updates or edge cases that are not so edgy.
At the beginning of Gitcasso, I took a little survey of GitLab, Reddit, ChatGPT, Claude, etc. to see how they were doing their textboxes. Of those I just listed, GitHub is the only one still using a plain textarea, all of the rest have a wysiwyg richtext gizmo (with GitLab and Reddit you can opt-in to markdown).
But by using the same variable-width font that the rendered comment uses, GitHub's default gives you more of a wysiwyg experience than a monospace font does. With syntax-highlighting it's an even more wysiwyg feel, but with absolutely none of the content ambiguity that richtext normally brings with it.
I came away really impressed with GitHub. For any given decision, it's hard to tell if the market victor won because of their good taste or if they won in spite of that particular decision and there was somewhere else where the good decisions were decisive. But as the GitHub issue/PR commenting system stands today, I have a hard time finding much to gripe with (except the missing syntax highlighting, of course).