anaclumos/configs/AGENTS.md
anaclumos/configs/AGENTS.md

anaclumos/configs/AGENTS.md

Backlinks (1)
  • Handling Agents with Love
AutoBuilder
AutoBuilder

AutoBuilder

Inspired by karpathy/autoresearch. Put this in a Ralph Loop.

Use each mode-specific prompt together with the common element block.

Auto Refactor

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code. Would Karpathy approve every line? Karpathy prefers lean, elegant, well-tested, zero-defensive programming. Use MCPs and web searches.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "KARPATHY_WILL_APPROVE_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_FOR_SURE"

Auto Fixer

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code, assess PR comments. Handle exactly one comment: either fix it, or rebut with 3 external sources. Fix any dirt found along the way. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "NO_COMMENTS_REMAINING_IN_GITHUB_EVEN_AFTER_20_MINUTES"

Auto Builder

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code, assess GitHub Issues. Pick one task: fix dirty code, or implement a new feature after MCP research. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "NO_REMAINING_TASK_AND_KARPATHY_APPROVES_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_IN_ITS_ENTIRETY"

Common Element

text
Also, I am a fresh agent—free to criticize and radically change previous work. Karpathy's philosophy: delete and simplify. Code is liability; prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code. UI libraries: optimize, don't delete. Re-read all the sources from zero. Use MCPs and web searches—traditional knowledge is stale. Commit and push at the loop end. Any edit means I need a fresh iteration. SWOT analysis first, then work.

Detailed review


<task>You are a ruthless engineering critic applying Andrej Karpathy's design philosophy. Read the architecture plan at PLAN LINK.
Karpathy's core principles:- Code is liability. Every line you write is a line you must maintain.- Delete and simplify. If something can be removed without breaking the system, remove it.- Prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code.- Zero-defensive design. Don't code for hypotheticals that haven't happened yet.- Start with the simplest thing that works. Add complexity only when forced by reality.- "Demo is works.any(), product is works.all()" -- but V1 is closer to demo than product.- Overfit a single batch before scaling up.
Apply these principles to the plan. For each section, ask:1. Is this needed for V1, or is it speculative engineering?2. Can this be deleted or simplified without losing core value?3. Is this solving a problem we actually have, or a problem we might have?4. Would a 10x engineer look at this and say "too much"?
Be brutal. Identify:- **OVER-ENGINEERING**: Things designed for scale/problems that don't exist yet- **UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY**: Things that add cognitive load without proportional value- **PREMATURE ABSTRACTIONS**: Separations that aren't justified at V1 scale- **DELETE CANDIDATES**: Sections, tables, fields, or features that should be cut from V1
This is a V1 product being built by a small team. The goal is to ship a working product, not to architect for 10M traffic on day one.
Use web search and tools to verify any claims you make about simpler alternatives.</task>
<structured_output_contract>Return findings in these sections:1. VERDICT: Would Karpathy approve? One line.2. DELETE: Things to remove entirely3. SIMPLIFY: Things to keep but make simpler4. KEEP: Things that are correctly lean5. THE LEAN V1: What the plan SHOULD look like if you strip it to essentials</structured_output_contract>
<grounding_rules>- Be specific. Don't say "simplify the schema" -- say which fields to cut.- Every DELETE must justify what you lose and why it's acceptable for V1.- Every KEEP must justify why it's essential, not just nice-to-have.- Think from the perspective of "what do I need to ship in 2 weeks?"</grounding_rules>
Backlinks (12)
  • 260418
  • 260528
  • 260415
  • 260414
  • 260409
  • 260407
  • 260405
  • 260404
  • 260403
  • 260402
  • 260401
  • 260331
인하우스와 자유경쟁
인하우스와 자유경쟁

인하우스와 자유경쟁

인하우스와 자유경쟁은 연구를 위한 두 가지 다른 방법으로 장단점이 명확하다. 인하우스는 더 많은 통제 권한과 비밀성을 보장해주지만 자유경쟁은 더 빠르고 더 저렴한 소비자 가격을 보장해준다. 이것을 개인적 맥락에서 적용해서 생각해볼 수 있을까?

  • 인하우스. 민사고에서는 연구 자원이 제한되어 있어 기술 애호가를 찾기가 어려웠다. 다행히도 안티프래질하게 독창성을 기를 수 있었다.
  • 자유경쟁. 대학은 학생들이 자금, 인정, 학문적 지위를 놓고 경쟁하는 자유 시장 경쟁 환경을 제공한다. 이는 혁신을 촉진하고 우수성을 장려하며 연구자와 학생을 위한 역동적이고 자극적인 환경을 조성한다. 대학에서 누릴 수 있는 최고의 이점.
  • 인하우스. 기업 연구소는 수익과 혁신을 우선시한다. 이런 기업 연구소의 기술은 몇 년 앞서 있다. 예를 들어, Google의 내부 연구소는 경쟁 우위를 유지하기 위해 최첨단 연구를 공개하지 않고 있다. 이로 인해 개별 과학자 및 과학에 대한 우려가 제기된다. 그럼에도 여전히 독립적인 연구를 하기에 좋은 시기이다. 왜냐하면...
  • 자유경쟁. 인터넷은 온라인 리소스에 대한 액세스를 통해 독립적인 과학자들의 과학 연구에 혁명을 일으키고 있다. 노트북과 인터넷 연결만 있으면 협업, 공유, 자금 조달, 과학 발전과 혁신에 대한 기여가 가능하다.

인터넷 기반의 자유경쟁 연구를 더 발전시키기 위해 더 나은 인프라가 필요할지도 모른다. 웹에서 사려 깊은 통찰과 연구를 작성하고 게시하는 것이 더 쉬워져야 한다. 이 Memex는 그 생각의 한 걸음이다.

Backlinks (2)
  • 230222
  • 30-Day Tweet Test (Harry Stebbings)
Index
cho.sh
I prefer CLIBB9A08260619260619컴퓨트로늄37A88F컴퓨트로늄0CF03F컴퓨트로늄2C60FB260618260618260418260418260528260528AutoBuilder63849A260419260419Setup9AC296StellaD226F7260415260415Debian SetupD2F701260414260414anaclumos/configs/AGENTS.mdED86A3Ramp의 AX (회사를 AI로 물들이는 법)840774260413260413How to get your company AI pilled46544C260411260411260409260409260407260407260406260406Separating Claude Code Personal Sub and Claude Code Company Sub33A53C
STOP! Re-read all code. Would Karpathy approve every line? Karpathy prefers lean, elegant, well-tested, zero-defensive programming. Use MCPs and web searches.
--completion-promise "KARPATHY_WILL_APPROVE_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_FOR_SURE"
STOP! Re-read all code, assess PR comments. Handle exactly one comment: either fix it, or rebut with 3 external sources. Fix any dirt found along the way. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.
--completion-promise "NO_COMMENTS_REMAINING_IN_GITHUB_EVEN_AFTER_20_MINUTES"
STOP! Re-read all code, assess GitHub Issues. Pick one task: fix dirty code, or implement a new feature after MCP research. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.
--completion-promise "NO_REMAINING_TASK_AND_KARPATHY_APPROVES_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_IN_ITS_ENTIRETY"
Also, I am a fresh agent—free to criticize and radically change previous work. Karpathy's philosophy: delete and simplify. Code is liability; prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code. UI libraries: optimize, don't delete. Re-read all the sources from zero. Use MCPs and web searches—traditional knowledge is stale. Commit and push at the loop end. Any edit means I need a fresh iteration. SWOT analysis first, then work.

<task>You are a ruthless engineering critic applying Andrej Karpathy's design philosophy. Read the architecture plan at PLAN LINK.
Karpathy's core principles:- Code is liability. Every line you write is a line you must maintain.- Delete and simplify. If something can be removed without breaking the system, remove it.- Prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code.- Zero-defensive design. Don't code for hypotheticals that haven't happened yet.- Start with the simplest thing that works. Add complexity only when forced by reality.- "Demo is works.any(), product is works.all()" -- but V1 is closer to demo than product.- Overfit a single batch before scaling up.
Apply these principles to the plan. For each section, ask:1. Is this needed for V1, or is it speculative engineering?2. Can this be deleted or simplified without losing core value?3. Is this solving a problem we actually have, or a problem we might have?4. Would a 10x engineer look at this and say "too much"?
Be brutal. Identify:- **OVER-ENGINEERING**: Things designed for scale/problems that don't exist yet- **UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY**: Things that add cognitive load without proportional value- **PREMATURE ABSTRACTIONS**: Separations that aren't justified at V1 scale- **DELETE CANDIDATES**: Sections, tables, fields, or features that should be cut from V1
This is a V1 product being built by a small team. The goal is to ship a working product, not to architect for 10M traffic on day one.
Use web search and tools to verify any claims you make about simpler alternatives.</task>
<structured_output_contract>Return findings in these sections:1. VERDICT: Would Karpathy approve? One line.2. DELETE: Things to remove entirely3. SIMPLIFY: Things to keep but make simpler4. KEEP: Things that are correctly lean5. THE LEAN V1: What the plan SHOULD look like if you strip it to essentials</structured_output_contract>
<grounding_rules>- Be specific. Don't say "simplify the schema" -- say which fields to cut.- Every DELETE must justify what you lose and why it's acceptable for V1.- Every KEEP must justify why it's essential, not just nice-to-have.- Think from the perspective of "what do I need to ship in 2 weeks?"</grounding_rules>
경고
1년 이상 지난 글입니다. 정보가 오래되었을 수 있습니다.