Took me a bit to understand what Wire does, but then it clicked. we’ve built something similar at a smaller scale inside R2, though right now it’s only for .md files.
I can see this becoming much more useful once the docs get heavier: large PDFs, XLSX files, images, etc. At that point you probably need embeddings, reranking etc. But I think agents are smart enough to write scripts to retrieve what they want if we run them on a sandbox(which we are trying to do currently). bookmarking this for now.
some of them are non existent today. Check the parent thread - some good recommendations(for 2023) on both functional websites and pretty websites. At that time if I recall linear landing page was all rage, and there were many copycats.
For a long time I wondered how SV startups got such pretty landing pages (here’s a comment I left 2 years back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421273). I wanted one for my side projects but couldn’t afford an agency, and the templates online were boring. Creating the page was only half the problem. I also needed somewhere to collect emails for the waitlist.
After AI happened, I built an app (promptfunnels) to scratch my own itch and generate funnels (fancy name for landing pages with a purpose).
Then came the harder part: marketing it. Coming from a tech background, I knew nothing about marketing, so I started reading and came across the $100M Leads book. I realized codifying those principles together with funnels and marketing automation had a real market. My family, friends, and acquaintances became the first customers.
A friend joined me as cofounder and we both quit our jobs to do this full time.
As we talked to other startup founders, they kept describing a tangential problem they called GTM. At the core it was the same thing we were solving: marketing for non-marketers. So we pivoted to RevMozi(https://revmozi.com/), which helps non-marketers do both inbound and outbound GTM.
We’re dogfooding the product and coming out of beta next month.
I had good success with hooks in claude code.
Personally I feel this problem was common with humans as well. We added tools like husky for git commits, for our peers to push code which was linted, type checked etc.
I feel hooks are integral part of your code harness, that’s only deterministic way to control coding agents.
For me it’s mostly useful in day-to-day coding, not “build an entire app and walk away” coding.
TDD was never really my natural style, but LLMs are great at generating the obvious test cases quickly. That lets me spend more of my attention on the edge cases, the invariants, and the parts that actually need judgment.
Frontend is another area where they help a lot. It’s not my strongest side, so pairing an LLM with shadcn/ui gets me to a decent, responsive UI much faster than I would on my own. Same with deployment and infra glue work across Cloudflare, AWS, Hetzner, and similar platforms.
I’m basically a generalist with stronger instincts in backend work, data modeling, and system design. So the value for me is that I can lean into those strengths and use LLMs to cover more ground in the areas where I’m weaker.
That said, I do think this only works if you’re using them as leverage, not as a substitute for taste or judgment.
Claude has gotten noticeably worse for me too. It goes into long exploration loops for 5+ minutes even when I point it to the exact files to inspect. Then 30 minutes later I hit session limits. Three sessions like that in a day, and suddenly 25% of the weekly limit is gone.
I ended up buying the $100 Codex plan. So far it has been much more generous with usage and more accurate than Claude for the kind of work I do.
That said, Codex has its own issues. Its personality can be a bit off-putting for my taste. I had to add extra instructions in Agents.md just to make it less snarky. I was annoyed enough that I explicitly told it not to use the word “canonical.”
On UI/UX taste, I still think current Codex is behind the Jan/Feb era of Claude Code. Claude used to have much better finesse there. But for backend logic, hard debugging, and complex problem-solving, Codex has been clearly better for me. These days I use Impeccable Skillset inside Codex to compensate for the weaker UI taste, but it still does not quite match the polish and instinct Claude Code used to have.
I used to be a huge Claude Code advocate. At this point, I cannot recommend it in good conscience.
My advice now is simple: try the $20 plans for Codex and Cursor, and see which one matches your workflow and vibes best
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but while directories and similar channels are useful, I felt like I was just shooting darts in the dark without understanding sales and marketing from first principles and hoping something would stick.
I had three side projects and kept struggling to get any real traction or traffic without becoming spammy across the internet. So I decided to approach it the same way I approach learning anything new: through books, courses, and solid foundational material.
HN had a few excellent suggestions. One of them was Founding Sales. Another, which I came across through a friend’s recommendation, was Alex Hormozi’s series. He seems to have something of a cult following, which made me a bit skeptical at first, so I decided to just read the first 100 pages before forming an opinion.
I ended up finding it genuinely useful, especially for understanding the psychology and mindset needed to sell something. I now highly recommend his book $100M Leads to technical friends who are trying to figure out how to sell what they’ve built.
I’m still learning, if you’ve any good recommendations, please drop them below
Agreed, had the same experience. Codex feels lazy - I have to explicitly tell it to research existing code before it stops giving hand-wavy answers. Doc lookup is particularly bad; I even gave it access to a Context7 MCP server for documentation and it barely made a difference. The personality also feels off-putting, even after tweaking the experimental flag settings to make it friendlier.
For people suggesting it’s a skill issue: I’ve been using Claude Code for the past 6 months and I genuinely want to make Codex work - it was highly recommended by peers and friends. I’ve tried different model settings, explicitly instructed it to plan first and only execute after my approval, tested it on both Python and TypeScript backend codebases. Results are consistently underwhelming compared to Claude Code.
Claude Code just works for me out of the box. My default workflow is plan mode - a few iterations to nail the approach, then Claude one-shots the implementation after I approve. Haven’t been able to replicate anything close to that with Codex
Came across official anthropic repo on gh actions very relevant to what you mentioned. Your idea on scheduled doc updation using llm is brilliant, I’m stealing this idea.
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action
Is there a comprehensive leaderboard like ClickBench but for vector DBs? Something that measures both the qualitative (precision/recall) and quantitative aspects (query perf at 95th/99th percentile, QPS at load, compression ratios, etc.)?
ANN-Benchmark exists but it’s algorithm-focused rather than full-stack database testing, so it doesn’t capture real-world ops like concurrent writes, filtering, or resource management under load.
Would be great to see something more comprehensive and vendor-neutral emerge, especially testing things like: tail latencies under concurrent load, index build times vs quality tradeoffs, memory/disk usage, and behavior during failures/recovery