Pinned Tweet
ここには何もないヨ
27
ikisuke retweeted
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017をllama.cppのUnsloth PR使って動かしたら10万トークンでも遅くならないし、コーディングミスもないし、日本語表現力もあるし、戦国的な野望ゲームつくれるし、Blenderで帆船つくれるし、めちゃくちゃ使えるモデルだった、というのをまとめました nowokay.hatenablog.com/entry…
2
39
214
16,564
手下の手柄を偽らない上司の鏡
学生交上来的作业,作者都是 Codex。
132
Astra, Solあたりのモデルが微妙になった?と思い始めたので、おそらくAGENTS.mdが古くなり始めたのかなと思ってメンテナンスを入れた。 劣化したと感じたら、自分の命令周りをメンテナンスするのが良いかも
13
ikisuke retweeted
ハーネス好きな方々に YouTube で流れてきた動画 URL をお知らせ。 Pstack 作者 の Lauren Tan さん( @poteto ) の解説動画。 1. 信頼がボトルネック 2. 検証(verification)が最重要スキル 3. フィーチャーマップ 4. Pstackの成り立ち 5. Evalとスキルの保守 6. ローカルからクラウドへ 7. リファクタリングと制約設計 8. コストと効果 9. 他職種への影響 piped.video/watch?v=I_oMJk6b…
60
684
71,418
パーソナルエージェント戦国時代きたな
1/ Introducing the Cua Spaces SDK. Every big lab now ships a bot with its own computer: Grok Bot, Muse, dots. None let you bring your own. With Cua Spaces, now you can. Put Claude Code, Codex or any agent on compute you choose, and run jobs across all your computers at once.
1
15
ikisuke retweeted
1/ Introducing the Cua Spaces SDK. Every big lab now ships a bot with its own computer: Grok Bot, Muse, dots. None let you bring your own. With Cua Spaces, now you can. Put Claude Code, Codex or any agent on compute you choose, and run jobs across all your computers at once.
176
259
3,739
577,706
dshカスタマイズできるのが強みって言うけど、素の性能でも全然いいなって気持ちもある
12
非エンジニアの人に、技術周りの話を教える会があるんだけど、入り口には最適だけど語弊があるみたいなものとか、概念だけ教えても極論意味がないよね、みたいなことがあったりするので、大変だなと思っています🤔
8
中国、大模型の輸出規制本気でかけにきてる。2兆超とか計算量がやばいやつは制限対象になりそう。 ただ「すでにオープンソースしてるものは対象外」「これから出すのも自動許可寄り」って書いてあるから、完全に締め付ける気はないっぽい。 強いモデルを素直に全公開するの、しんどくなりそう。
🚨突发!中国拟对开源AI大模型出口实施新管制!DeepSeek、Qwen等新模型发布或受影响? 🔹商务部+科技部拟将大模型、智能体、算力集群等23项AI技术列入出口限制目录,征求意见至11月15日 🔹出口前登记管理即日起生效 🔹已开源/公开论文的技术明确豁免,不纳入管理 🔹并非全面禁止开源,但新开发模型首次全球发布可能需提前合规审批 🔹官方强调范围有限、支持开源,但不确定性已引发市场关注 中国开源模型领先优势会因此放缓吗?还是“既要开源又要可控”的新平衡? #中国AI #DeepSeek #Qwen #开源AI #出口管制 #AI监管 #大模型 #技术出口 #DeepSeek #通义千问
23
AI周りはグリーン材の誤謬がいっぱいある気がする
3
まじすか!! 最高最高最高最高最高最高最高最高最高
New update is here! - Apple Silicon is now supported - NVFP4 Support, UD-Q4, UD-Q5, UD-Q6, UD-Q8 - Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is also now available - Another 10%-20% boost and more: github.com/Niko1221/Strata/r…
9
ikisuke retweeted
来たわね。Ling-3.1-flash。560B-A25B。 オープンウェイトモデルの中では新しい、3DモデリングとかUIみたいな、ビジュアル性能が高めの印象。 まあ、アストラ以降のトレンドが地元にも来た。 ローカルLLM驚きとしては、かなり驚きやすそうなものが来てるわ。 ほ〜ら天才たち〜新しいおもちゃよ。 @Hikari_07_jp @pentacoxian_dev
Ling-3.1-flash is now open source: ~560B total parameters, ~25B active per token and up to 1M context. Built for real work, it can turn a rough brief into a page, mobile UI or interactive prototype teams can review and refine. See the demo.
1
14
140
9,475
とても良さそう! 触ってみます
Claude Codeのスキル「imozuru」を公開しました imozuruは、ループエンジニアリングの考え方を応用し、情報探索の研究(Batesのberrypicking、Ellis、Kuhlthau)が示した検索手法を、LLMにそのままやってもらうスキルです! ガンガンドメイン知識を仕入れられます github.com/MaryCache/imozuru
1
432
grokのサブスク統合って本当に、grok botとcursorとgrok imagine とgrok build合わせてるのか 全部で使用量食い合うのちょっと微妙かもなぁ
48
ikisuke retweeted
Don't build alone, apply to join our Grok Bot X Communities x.ai/bot/community! We have curated group chats for: • GTM • Product • Marketing • Engineering • Recruiting • Design where you can share what you're working on and learn from others using Grok Bot
237
216
2,781
393,789
無事ぶち込みましたorz
それは本当です...? Cursor プランに含まれてる外部モデルが無いなら一旦待って、Grokモデルがもっと良くなるまで静観したほうが良さそう もう少しでUltraぶち込むところだったじゃん危ない危ない...
1
22
ikisuke retweeted
業務フローを人間が読む図からAIが理解・レビューできるデータにする話。これまだ個人的にベスプラ見つかってないから助かる。 従来のExcelやPowerPointによる業務フローは、AIが業務の意味を理解しにくい。 そこで記事では、国際標準規格「BPMN 2.0」と「bpmn.io」を活用する方法が紹介されてる。 具体的には、 ① 誰が何をするか、どこで分岐するかを構造化データとして保存 ② 開始・終了の欠落や未接続タスクを自動検出 ③ Claude Codeで「承認したのに却下通知が送られる」といった業務上の矛盾もレビュー さらにGitで変更履歴も管理できる、と future-architect.github.io/a…
16
100
791
50,347
ikisuke retweeted
Zennで初の本を執筆しました タイトル通り、pstackの本です! 「pstackがなぜ、エージェントとの開発を圧倒的に進められるのか」だけでなく、pstackの全て(Skill・Principles・Playbook)を詳細に解説してます 日本ではpstackについて、ここまで言及した記事や本はないと思うので、少しでも読んでいただけたら嬉しいです! 推奨は最初から順に読んでいただくことですが、60万文字と技術書数冊分に及ぶので、どの章から読んでも良いような作りにしています (もちろん、前後の文脈の理解は多少必要です🙏) 最後に、pstackは最高です! zenn.dev/sc30gsw/books/080fa… #zenn
18
62
412
63,189
ikisuke retweeted
Wrote a short blog about the "shape" of language models, and the tradeoffs they may present in the future. I genuinely think it's a valuable research direction to start thinking about now, especially w.r.t. harness design. alexzhang13.github.io/blog/2…
51
257
2,391
290,080
ikisuke retweeted
Cursorのエージェントハーネス改善のTips 一番重要だと思うのは、モデルが賢くなるほど、ハーネスも「足す」だけではなく「何がもう要らないか」を検証する必要があるという点 特に、トークンを減らしたかではなく、品質を保ったまま完了タスクあたりのコストが下がったかで判断することが重要だ 個別の節約テクニックより5つの原則がかなり重要だと思う 1. モデルに節約させず、ハーネスが送るものを見直す プロンプトでは、「トークンを無駄遣いするな」と指示した結果、モデルが大きな仕事を避けたり、途中でやめたりした例が紹介されている 節約をモデル任せにすると、トークンだけでなく仕事まで小さくなりかねない。見るべきなのは、タスクを完了するまでのコストだ 2. 命令を足し続けず、モデルがすでにできることを棚卸しする 一般的なプロンプトのプラクティスでは、明確で具体的な指示が勧められるが、最近はこのプラクティスも見直す必要がある モデルが自力でできるようになった動作や、古いモデル向けの禁止事項まで毎回伝える必要はない 製品や環境についてモデルが知らないこと、実際のログで確認できたコンテキストのみ残すようにする 3. 最初から全部渡さず、必要な情報を取りに行けるようにする ほとんどの依頼で必要な情報だけを最初に渡し、残りはツールなどから必要時に取得する 情報を減らすのは、重要な出力を切り捨てることではない 長い出力はファイルに置き、必要な範囲を後から読めるようにすることが重要 4. モデルの能力が上がったら、足すだけでなく削る 以前は有効だったガードや、サブエージェントを使わせる指示が、今のモデルには不要だったり、かえって手間になったりすることがある モデルが変わったら、指示もそのまま引き継ぐのではなく、実際の振る舞いを見て見直すこと 5. ベンチマークだけでなく、普段の使われ方で判断する 変更前と変更後を比べる。実際によくある依頼で試し、コストが下がっても成功率が落ちていないか確認する 本番では小さくA/Bテストし、成功率、完了タスクあたりのコスト、ターン数、ツールエラー、レイテンシなどを合わせて見る 変更の進め方にも考え方が表れているので、参考にしたい 共通となるのは、「戻せる形で小さく試す」ということだ ・計測やキャッシュの改善などは、戻せる形(小さい変更)で効果を見る ・プロンプトやツール構成の変更はフラグで、戻せる形にして試す ・モデル選択やルーティング、推論設定の変更は、まず提案として扱う Cursorでは、こうした改善で品質を落とさずトークンコストを約7%削減し、システムプロンプトも約3分の2にしたと報告されている nitter.siddz.com/cursor_ai/status/21027…
here's a prompt to improve your agent harness based on what we've learned at cursor. enjoy # Improve this agent harness's token efficiency You're working on an LLM agent harness: the system prompt, tool definitions, request assembly, context caching, compaction, and retrieval, and how work is split across agents. Make the agent's runs cheaper without making it worse at its job. - Objective: lower price-weighted token cost per completed task. - Constraint: no measurable drop in task quality. Measure per task, not per request. Every turn resends the prefix (tools, instructions, setup, and the conversation so far), so a change that shrinks each request but adds turns can cost more. Weight tokens by billing type: output, uncached input, and cached input are priced very differently. Work in this order: map the harness and measure the baseline, rank the opportunities, make the changes that are safe to make directly, put the rest behind flags or in proposals, then report. Figures below come from one team's production coding agent and its multi-agent experiments. Use them to gauge magnitude, not as targets. One round of these changes (prompt trimming, tool offloading, cache layout, sparse line numbers, subagent tuning) cut that team's overall token cost about 7% with no loss in quality. The larger percentages apply only to the part of the request each change touched. ## Principles 1. Change what the harness sends, not how hard the model tries. Don't ask the model to conserve tokens. A harness that told its model to "take care to preserve tokens and not be wasteful" found it grew reluctant to take on ambitious tasks and sometimes quit, saying it wasn't supposed to waste tokens. 2. Capable models need definitions, not commands. Lists of "DO NOT", "You must", and "Important", and guards against older models' habits, can usually be replaced with plain descriptions of what each tool does. One team cut about two-thirds of its system prompt this way, and the shorter prompt worked across model families. Instruct only on what the model can't know (the product, the environment, the user's processes) and on quirks you've seen in transcripts. 3. Static context is for what most turns need. Everything else should be discoverable when needed. Less up-front context also means less confusing or contradictory information. 4. Expect removals to win. Guardrails written for weaker models, coordination steps that became bottlenecks, and prompting for behavior the model now does on its own all cost tokens. 5. Real usage decides. Evals are a fast proxy, but they skew toward hard problems and miss the real mix of requests. ## 1. Map the harness and measure the baseline Find: - Where requests are assembled, the system prompt, and tool schemas. If a framework or SDK builds requests, find its hooks for message order, cache control, and tool loading. - How tool results are formatted, and how history is kept, trimmed, or summarized. - How subagents or parallel agents are spawned, if any. - Which models and provider APIs are used. From the provider's docs, get the prompt caching behavior (automatic or explicit breakpoints, TTL, minimum cacheable length) and the prices for output, uncached input, and cached input. - Existing logging, token accounting, and evals. If the harness doesn't record per-request token usage by billing type and cache hits, add that first. Everything later depends on it. Then render a few real requests (from logs, or by running representative tasks) and count tokens per section with the model's tokenizer or the API's usage fields. Produce: - Cost share by source × billing type. Sources: system prompt, tool definitions, skill/rule/integration descriptions, user messages, file reads, search results, command and other tool output, history, summaries, subagents. - Static tokens per request, cache hit rate, and turns per task. - Per tool: the share of runs that call it at least once, and its error rate. Read the rendered requests, not just the templates. Duplication, leaked volatile values, and misordered blocks only show up there. Rank opportunities by share of spend × fraction removable ÷ quality risk. ## 2. System prompt and injected context Label every instruction: - Keep: product or environment knowledge the model can't infer, fixes for quirks seen in this model's transcripts, and rules a mode depends on. - Rewrite: commands and emphasis into plain descriptions. Reminders into constraints: "No TODOs, no partial implementations" works better than "remember to finish implementations." Vague quantities into ranges: "generate 20–100 tasks" gets far more ambitious behavior than "generate many tasks." - Delete: things capable models do by default, guards against behavior you haven't seen from this model, text that repeats tool descriptions, and lines that could contradict a user request. Models trained to rank system instructions above user messages will side with the system prompt. - Move: anything per-user or per-request (date, environment, repo state, lists of skills or subagents, user rules) into a user-role setup message after the cache boundary. Audit other injected context the same way. As models improved, the team behind these figures dropped directory trees, pre-retrieved snippets, compressed copies of attached files, lint errors injected after every edit, forced expansion of short file reads, and caps on tool calls per turn. They kept small, high-value facts: OS, repo status, and open or recently viewed files. Skip checklists for open-ended work. The model optimizes the listed items and deprioritizes everything else. ## 3. Tool definitions Tool schemas ride along on every request. Most tools beyond the core set were each needed in under 20% of conversations, and moving them out of static context cut tool-description tokens 60%. Doing the same for integration tools (such as MCP servers), with names in context and full schemas in one folder per server that the agent can search with grep or jq, cut total tokens 46.9% in sessions that used them. - Keep in static context: high-frequency tools (for a coding agent: read, search, edit, shell), tools the model tries to call even when they're absent, and tools a mode depends on. - Offload the rest: leave a name or one-line pointer and make the full schema discoverable on demand. Group related tools so they load together, and put status (such as "needs re-authentication") where the agent will see it. - Tighten what remains: describe behavior and arguments, and drop usage lectures. - Pick the split by testing a few configurations and tracking tokens, cost, latency, tool-call errors, and task success. ## 4. Cache layout Order each request so the reusable prefix is as long as possible: `tool definitions → system instructions → [breakpoint] → setup message (skills, subagents, rules, environment) → [breakpoint] → conversation` - Keep the prefix byte-identical across turns. Use deterministic tool order and serialization, put timestamps and IDs after the boundary, and don't rewrite earlier messages except when compacting. - Use explicit breakpoints if the provider supports them. Otherwise rely on automatic prefix caching with the stable part first. Respect TTL and minimum-length rules. - Switching models mid-conversation throws away the cache (caches are per model and provider) and hands the new model a history it didn't write. When a different model is needed, run it as a subagent with fresh context. Explicit breakpoints plus moving per-request setup after them cut cold cache misses 20%. ## 5. Tool results and other context added during a run - Large outputs (commands, integrations, logs): write them to a file and return the path, size, and a short tail. The agent can tail, grep, or read ranges for more. Truncating loses data, and inlining bloats every later request. Treat long-running terminal sessions the same way. - High-volume formats: look for overhead repeated on every line or item. Numbering every 10th line of a file read instead of every line cut cache-read tokens 1.6% without hurting citation accuracy. Each number costs 3–5 tokens, and agents read tens of thousands of lines per session. Also check repeated absolute paths, verbose JSON keys, ANSI codes, progress bars, and repeated headers. - Good retrieval saves exploration turns. Adding semantic search alongside grep raised codebase question-answering accuracy 12.5% on average and cut the iterations users needed. - Tool errors waste tokens and leave confusing debris in context. Classify expected errors (invalid arguments, unexpected environment, provider error, timeout, user abort), treat unknown errors as harness bugs, and track rates per tool and per model. One focused effort along these lines cut unexpected tool errors 10×. ## 6. Long runs: compaction, subagents, and model mix - Compaction: keep the summarization prompt short and the summary compact, carry forward plan state and remaining tasks, and save the full history to a file the agent can search for details the summary dropped. A model trained to self-summarize from a one-line prompt wrote ~1k-token summaries with half the compaction error of a multi-thousand-token prompt that produced 5k+ token summaries. Untrained models may need more guidance, so test how short you can go. A more expensive summarization model made a negligible difference. - Scratchpads and running notes: rewrite them instead of appending. For repeated work in one environment, a small agent-maintained notes file with a line budget, loaded at start, is a promising way to shorten later runs. - Subagents: fresh context keeps the parent lean, but isolation adds coordination cost (duplicate or stale work). If the model already delegates on its own, remove prompting that pushes it to. Have subagents return short handoffs: what was done, findings, concerns, and deviations. A subagent should use a different model only when the user or harness says so. - Model mix: in large multi-agent runs, workers used at least 69% of tokens, and over 90% in most runs. A frontier planner with cheap workers matched a frontier model doing everything at about one-eighth the cost. Planner choice still changes worker spend. One planner that cost less on its own saw its workers use several times more tokens, and the run cost more overall. Measure the whole tree. - Routing and reasoning effort: send simple turns to a cheaper model or lower effort, and upgrade only when a stronger model is clearly better. A router built this way matched or beat single frontier models on user satisfaction at 41–68% lower cost. - Reasoning continuity: if the API returns reasoning items (including encrypted ones), pass them back on later turns and alert when they go missing. Dropping them cost one reasoning model 30% on a coding benchmark, and it burned tokens reconstructing its plan. ## 7. Fit the harness to each model Adapt to what each model was trained on instead of forcing one shape on all of them. If you've tuned the harness for a similar model, start from that version. - Edit format: use the one the model was trained on (for example, patch-style or search-and-replace). An unfamiliar format costs extra reasoning tokens and causes more mistakes. - Shell or tools: shell-first models fall back to `cat` or inline scripts. Name tools after their shell equivalents (such as `rg`), and if needed add: "If a tool exists for an action, prefer to use the tool instead of shell commands (e.g. read_file over `cat`)." - Literalness: some model families follow instructions literally and others tolerate imprecision. Some spiral on emphasized wording. Strip caps and emphasis for literal models. - Triggers: some models ignore a tool until told when to use it. A literal trigger works: "After substantive edits, use the <lint tool> to check recently edited files for linter errors. If you've introduced any, fix them if you can easily figure out how." - Progress updates: if a model reports progress through reasoning summaries, keep them to 1–2 sentences that note new findings or a change of tactic, and remove instructions about messaging mid-turn. - Quirks worth a targeted line: hedging or refusing as context fills ("context anxiety"), declaring completion early, stopping to ask permission, and calling tools that don't exist. Tie each added instruction to the transcript behavior it fixes. Re-audit when models change, since guidance one version needed can be dead weight for the next. ## 8. Validate - Offline: run a fixed set of realistic tasks before and after, ideally drawn from real usage and phrased the way users actually write (short and ambiguous). Compare task success, tokens, cost per task, turns, and tool errors. Don't ship a change that lowers success. - Online, if you have users: A/B test each change or small bundle. The primary metric is cost per completed task. Guardrails are task success signals, tool-call errors, latency, turns per task, and cache hit rate. For a coding agent, a good success signal is how much agent-written code survives over time. In general, check whether the user's next message moves on or reports a problem. - Ship only when cost drops and no guardrail regresses beyond noise. Record null results. ## What to change directly and what to propose - Change directly, each in its own revertible commit: token and cache telemetry, deterministic serialization and tool order, moving volatile content out of the cached prefix, explicit cache breakpoints, writing large outputs to files instead of truncating, passing back reasoning items that are being dropped, and fixes for recurring tool errors. - Change behind a flag so it can be tested: system prompt edits, tool offloading, output format changes, compaction changes, and subagent prompting. - Propose only: changes to which models run, routing, reasoning-effort defaults, or how work is split across agents. ## Traps - Asking the model to use fewer tokens or do less. - Truncating tool output. - Dropping reasoning items to save input tokens. - Volatile content in the cached prefix, or tool order that changes between requests. - Offloading a tool the model needs on the first turn or tries to call when it's missing. - Emphasis-heavy prompts (MUST, NEVER, IMPORTANT, all caps), especially with literal models. - Forcing a terser output format than the model was trained on. Fewer output tokens can mean less thinking and worse results. - Optimizing raw token counts instead of cost, per request instead of per task, or evals instead of real usage. - Switching models mid-conversation to save money. - Adding coordination layers that become bottlenecks. ## Report back with 1. The harness map and baseline: cost by source × billing type, with the biggest sources called out. 2. A ranked list of changes: layer, what changes, estimated savings and how you estimated them, quality risk, how to validate, and how to roll back. 3. The changes you made, including a system prompt diff with a keep, rewrite, delete, or move reason for each line. 4. A test plan for the flagged changes. 5. Gaps: anything you couldn't find or measure.
1
3
24
4,837