HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

jmilinovich

no profile record

Submissions

Show HN: Grove, an open-source MCP server to search/write to your Obsidian Vault

github.com
2 points·by jmilinovich·mês passado·0 comments

Show HN: Grove – Open-source remote MCP server for Obsidian vaults

github.com
3 points·by jmilinovich·há 3 meses·0 comments

The Architecture of Asking

echo.surf
6 points·by jmilinovich·há 4 meses·1 comments

Show HN: Goal.md, a goal-specification file for autonomous coding agents

github.com
31 points·by jmilinovich·há 4 meses·8 comments

2026: The Year of Autonomous Computing

jmilinovich.com
1 points·by jmilinovich·há 7 meses·0 comments

Today Is Full of Possibilities

jmilinovich.com
3 points·by jmilinovich·há 7 meses·0 comments

comments

jmilinovich
·há 3 meses·discuss
[dead]
jmilinovich
·há 4 meses·discuss
This feedback is true gold. Thank you for this, I’ll make these tweaks to increase readability.

I also love just asking Claude to look at the repo and decide how it should use it. Have had a few times where it said “project not a good fit” which in and of itself is a good sign
jmilinovich
·há 4 meses·discuss
Autoresearch is awesome for stuff that has really clear loss functions but most problems don’t have that. So if you’re trying to improve product quality or write great docs you can use goal.md
jmilinovich
·há 4 meses·discuss
Appreciate that! This fast feedback loop is what I like most about personal software.
jmilinovich
·há 4 meses·discuss
I had 30 broken Playwright tests and no way to tell which ones actually mattered. The problem wasn’t “fix the tests” — it was that there’s no coverage tool for test infrastructure trustworthiness. I had to build the ruler before I could measure anything.

So I wrote a file that defined a composite metric (four weighted components → one score), an improvement loop, and constraints. Pointed Claude at it. Went to bed. Woke up to 12 commits, 47 → 83.

The file became GOAL.md. The insight that surprised me: most software doesn’t have a natural scalar metric like val_bpb. You have to construct it. Documentation quality, API trustworthiness, test infrastructure confidence — these things have no pytest –cov equivalent. But once you build the ruler, the autoresearch loop works on them too.

The part I’m most uncertain about: the “dual score” pattern. When the agent is building its own measuring tools, it can game the metric by weakening the instrument. So the docs-quality example has two scores — one for the docs, one for the linter itself. The agent has to improve the telescope before it can use it. I think this is load-bearing but I’d love to hear if others have found different solutions to the same problem.

Easiest way to try it: paste this into Claude Code, Cursor, or any coding agent and point it at one of your repos:

Read github.com/jmilinovich/goal-md — read the template and examples. Then write me a GOAL.md for this repo and start working on it.

Happy to hear what breaks. The scoring script is bash + jq so it’s not exactly production-grade, and the examples are biased toward the kinds of projects I work on. More examples from different domains would make the pattern sharper.