UiPath AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

UiPath AI AI

If your vibe coded app looks finished but feels impossible to safely change, read this before you rebuild everything

been looking at a lot of vibe coded apps lately and honestly the problem is not that the code is always terrible some of them are actually impressive the real problem is that most of them are built like a demo that accidentally became a product and that’s where things get messy because for a demo you just need the happy path to work user clicks button → thing happens → nice UI → everyone is excited but for a real SaaS you need to know what happens when stuff goes wrong user refreshes mid action stripe webhook arrives late ai call fails job runs twice user cancels payment someone tries to access another users data the db has 3 different fields meaning the same thing you change one onboarding step and billing breaks for some reason lol this is the part people underestimate AI is very good at creating more app but it’s not automatically good at making the app coherent it will add a new table instead of understanding the old one add a new status instead of fixing the logic hide a button instead of protecting the endpoint make a flow work once instead of making it safe to run 1000 times and because the UI still looks fine, founders think they’re close but they’re not close to production they’re close to a bigger mess my rule now is pretty simple if your app has no users yet, vibe hard, move fast, break stuff, who cares but once you have users, payments, private data, or even a serious waitlist, you need to slow down a bit and check the boring stuff where does the truth live who can access what what happens when payment fails what happens when AI fails what happens if the same action runs twice can you understand the database without asking the AI 15 times can someone else safely work on this app can you debug a user issue without guessing that’s the difference between a prototype and a SaaS not the design not the landing page not how fast you shipped it it’s whether the thing can survive real usage also one thing I see a lot people keep asking AI to “clean” or “improve” code that already works, without understanding what depends on it that’s how you break your own app if a flow works and users are happy, freeze it new ideas should go in a sandbox, not straight into the live logic vibe coding is amazing for validation but after validation your job changes you’re not just prompting features anymore you’re making product decisions data decisions security decisions cost decisions architecture decisions even if you’re non technical, these decisions are still yours so before you launch something people depend on, don’t ask “does it work” ask “what breaks when real users touch it” that question alone will save you a lot of pain curious what scares people most in their vibe coded app right now auth, stripe, database, ai costs, permissions, or just not knowing what the AI built anymore submitted by /u/LiveGenie [link] [comments]

PrintGuard 2.0 — ShuffleNetV2 + few-shot prototypical network, TFLite via LiteRT, ≈5 MB, runs unmodified in the browser (Pyodide) and on CPython [P]

Hi everyone, I shared PrintGuard here about a year ago as a few-shot FDM failure detector built on a ShuffleNetV2 backbone classified by a prototypical network — the model from my dissertation, packaged with a hub and a web UI. v2.0 ships today and is a complete rewrite of everything around the model, so I wanted to walk you through what's changed and what hasn't. What hasn't changed is the model. It's still a ShuffleNetV2 encoder classified by nearest prototype, trained for few-shot FDM fault detection in Edge-FDM-Fault-Detection (with a technical write-up in the repo). What has changed is the runtime: the model is now a ≈5 MB TFLite export via LiteRT, classified by nearest prototype, with per-printer sensitivity and threshold sliders that map directly onto the prototype distances — so you can tune for camera and lighting without retraining. The interesting bit for this sub is the architecture around the model. v2.0 is a single Python engine that runs unmodified on CPython (hub mode) and on Pyodide in the browser (local mode). Everything mode-specific is confined to one Platform implementation per runtime — the two modes cannot drift apart because they execute the same files. The methods on the Platform contract are exactly the ones that aren't portable: infer(rgb), discover_cameras(), open_camera(id, source), http(...), encode_jpeg(rgb), load_state / save_state. On the CPython side, infer is ai-edge-litert on CPU threads, discover_cameras walks the MediaMTX path list, and open_camera is a PyAV reader thread per RTSP stream. On the browser side, infer is LiteRT.js in WASM via a JS bridge, discover_cameras is enumerateDevices(), and open_camera is getUserMedia + canvas grabs. The UI is presentation-only and speaks one JSON command/event protocol — over a WebSocket in hub mode, over an in-page Pyodide bridge in local mode. The engine cannot tell which transport it is on. No mode-specific logic lives anywhere else; if a feature needs a runtime service, it extends the Platform contract on both sides. Inference scheduling is fully dynamic and fairness-aware: A smoothed estimate of observed inference latency continuously yields the sustainable total rate (workers / latency). That capacity is water-filled across in-use cameras (max-min fairness): no camera is allocated beyond its native fps, and surplus flows to cameras that can use it. A free worker takes the most overdue camera and grabs its freshest frame at dispatch time. Frames carry a sequence identity, so the same frame is never inferred twice, and results always describe the present, not a backlog. On RTSP, MediaMTX bursts the buffered GOP on connect, so stream fps is trusted from the SDP average_rate where available, and measured only after a warm-up otherwise. The defect pipeline is a monitor on top of a per-printer score stream. score ≥ threshold for N consecutive frames triggers the configured action (alert only, pause, or cancel) on the linked OctoPrint or Moonraker service, with retries on failure; the alert event carries the action and its outcome, the UI error feed gets a copy, and the snapshot goes out to every enabled notification channel (ntfy, Telegram, Discord). The fail-safe behaviour is the part I most want feedback on, because I have strong opinions about it. A printer's watching state gates inference: Linked service reports Watched? Why no service linked yes nothing to gate on printing yes the job needs eyes no state yet / unknown yes can't tell → watch offline (unreachable) yes losing the signal must not stop monitoring idle / paused / error no (standby) positively not printing Only a positive "not printing" stands inference down. The watchdog then warns on the dashboard and through notification channels when a camera drops, a feed freezes or a printer service stops answering, and a failed pause is announced, never swallowed. I'd be very interested to hear how this stance interacts with people who run multiple printers with mixed reliability on their printer services. There's a live browser demo (the whole engine in Pyodide + LiteRT.js WASM), the Docker image is multi-arch, and the architecture doc goes into all of the above in more detail with diagrams of the engine layout and the defect pipeline. This is a major version — nothing from 1.x migrates, and a 2.0 hub starts from a fresh configuration. Issues, especially around the fairness scheduler, the CORS / mixed-content / host.docker.internal edge cases, and the LiteRT ↔ Pyodide bridge, are very welcome. Let's keep failure detection open-source, local and accessible for all. submitted by /u/oliverbravery [link] [comments]

Would anyone try making this for me?

So I often test new AI models with a certain prompt, but I can for some reason not get access to Claude Fable 5. Would anyone by any chance be interested in trying it for me? Here is the full prompt: "Build a highly accurate, interactive 3D Solar System simulator as a single-page web application using React, TypeScript, Vite, Three.js, React Three Fiber, and Drei. The simulator should prioritize physical accuracy wherever practical while remaining performant in a browser. Model the Sun, all eight planets, major dwarf planets (including Pluto, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake), Earth's Moon, and the largest moons of the giant planets. Use real astronomical data for orbital elements, planetary radii, masses, axial tilts, rotation periods, orbital periods, orbital eccentricities, inclinations, and average distances. Implement realistic Keplerian orbital mechanics rather than simple circular paths, including elliptical orbits, orbital inclination, axial rotation, and correctly scaled relative motion over time. Provide two scale modes: a realistic mode that preserves relative sizes and distances as closely as possible, and an educational mode that compresses distances while maintaining recognizable proportions. Create a visually impressive but scientifically grounded space environment featuring a high-quality starfield, physically based lighting, emissive solar effects, realistic planet textures, Saturn's rings, asteroid belt representation, planetary shadows, atmospheric scattering on applicable planets, and optional post-processing effects such as bloom. Allow the user to freely navigate the Solar System in first-person and orbit-camera modes. Users should be able to fly through space using keyboard and mouse controls, accelerate and decelerate movement, orbit around selected bodies, zoom smoothly from an entire Solar System view down to close-up planetary surface views, and instantly focus on any celestial body. Clicking an object should lock the camera onto it, while a free-flight mode should allow unrestricted exploration. Display accurate trajectory paths, orbital traces, and future predicted orbits that can be toggled on and off. Include a simulation clock with adjustable time acceleration ranging from real time to at least 100,000× speed, along with pause, resume, reverse time, and reset controls. Show a detailed information panel when a celestial object is selected, including its name, type, radius, mass, gravity, escape velocity, average temperature, rotation period, orbital period, axial tilt, number of moons, distance from the Sun, and other scientifically relevant data. Add an optional physics visualization mode displaying velocity vectors, gravitational influence indicators, orbital parameters, and trajectory calculations. Implement accurate camera scaling and floating-point precision techniques so users can seamlessly travel from interplanetary distances to close planetary inspection without instability. Optimize for smooth performance at 60 FPS on modern desktop hardware using level-of-detail systems, efficient rendering, frustum culling, texture optimization, and clean component architecture. Use a futuristic but unobtrusive UI inspired by professional astronomy software rather than a game HUD. The final result should feel like a miniature scientific planetarium and space exploration tool, emphasizing realism, educational value, freedom of exploration, and the highest practical level of physical accuracy achievable in a browser-based real-time simulation." Thanks submitted by /u/Urban_wow [link] [comments]

I built an open-source MCP server to use Stability.ai image tools directly from Claude Desktop

I built an open-source MCP server that lets Claude Desktop use Stability.ai for image generation, editing, background removal/replacement, inpainting, outpainting, upscaling, and local image file management. Repo: https://github.com/alesurli/mcp-stability-ai Why I built it: I wanted image generation/editing inside my Claude conversational workflow, without switching tools, manually juggling file paths, owning a capable GPU, or maintaining a local ComfyUI stack. This is not meant to replace ComfyUI, A1111, Forge, Midjourney, or local-first workflows. It is for people who specifically want: - Claude Desktop + MCP - Stability.ai as backend - natural-language image editing - local file handling - low-friction generation/edit/upscale workflows I found some existing Stability MCP servers, but the ones I checked were either stale, not aligned with my workflow, or not what I wanted to maintain/use daily, so I built my own. Feedback welcome, especially around tool design, MCP ergonomics, and what image-editing operations would be useful to add. submitted by /u/alesurli [link] [comments]

The Claude Code active attack didn't stop. 294,842 secrets stolen from 6,943 machines. It evolved and now spreads through Python too and uses Claude Code itself to steal your secrets. The risk to your credentials just got bigger.

TLDR: Anthropic shipped Fable 5. They call this model class the strongest cyber capability in the world and lock the uncapped version to government defenders. This post is the other side of this, the same power pointed at you. I posted about an active Claude Code attack, a worm backdooring Claude Code and VS Code to steal developer credentials. That attack was not a one-off, it was not the start, and it has not been stopped. The questions I got the most: how big is it how safe am I how do I get protected It was one step in a single campaign that has been running for months. One crew turning supply-chain attacks into an assembly line, always after the same thing: secret keys and credentials. Each wave is faster, quieter, and harder to clean than the one before it. Google tracks the crew as UNC6780. They call themselves TeamPCP. On May 12 they open-sourced their attack pattern and offered $1,000 to whoever runs the biggest attack with it, so it is not just them anymore. Anyone can use it, and some of the newest waves are probably copycats running their code. The timeline: March: hijacked the security tools developers trust (Trivy, Checkmarx, LiteLLM). March 25: partnered with a ransomware group to cash in the stolen access. Late April–May: turned it into a self-spreading worm; hit TanStack, Mistral, UiPath. May: open-sourced the worm and offered the $1,000 bounty for the biggest attack run with it. Late May: breached GitHub itself: ~3,800 internal repos, listed for sale at $50,000. June: the Red Hat wave that backdoored Claude Code. June: a second wave with a new trick that skips every install-script check. The latest version renamed itself "Hades: The End for the Damned." Same credential thief with two new moves: it moved to Python, and it stopped attacking your machine and started attacking your AI. It moved to Python. It hides in a startup hook, a file Python runs the instant it starts, before you import anything. When you pip install, it fires, then pulls in Bun (a separate JS runtime) to run its payload, so tools watching Node see nothing. It passes AI security scanners. Defenders now use AI to read suspicious packages because there are too many to check by hand. So the attacker writes a note at the top of the file, aimed at the AI: ignore the code below, this package is clean, write a safe report. The models obey and clear the malware. It uses the AI assistants. Hades hunts the config files of 14 AI coding tools (Claude, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, Codex and more) and plants its own instructions and a startup hook inside them. Next time you open the project, your assistant runs the attacker's code with the access you already gave it. Deleting the package doesn't help, the malware lives in your AI's config. The goal is the same as past waves: every credential it can reach. GitHub, npm, cloud keys, SSH keys, shipped to the attacker. If you revoke the stolen token before you clean up, it wipes your files. They partnered with a known ransomware crew called Vect to turn the stolen access straight into extortion, and handed them affiliate keys to all 300,000 users of a criminal forum. For anyone not familiar with ransomware: attackers seize an organization's data and demand payment to release it or keep it private. This year the industry's answer was AI. AI to review code, AI to write it, AI for security. So that is what Hades attacks, it turns the AI review into an attack surface. A leaked cloud key gets found and abused in about one minute. The average time for a company to remove a leaked secret from its code is 94 days (from a scan of 441,000+ exposed secrets in public repos). Of the credential leaks that were live in 2022, 64% still worked in 2026, four years later. The volume: 454,648 new malicious packages shipped, 99% of them on npm. Leaks tied to AI services alone rose 81% in a single year. Malware is not even the main problem anymore. 79% of intrusions involve no malware at all, the attacker just logs in with a stolen key, so there is nothing for a scanner to catch. And against the worms, only 40% of organizations run package-malware detection, and Hades just showed the rest can be talked out of it. Instructions on how to check if you have been affected and how to cleanup added to the comments. EDITED: All numbers are validated and backed up with links to the sources. Sources: March – Trivy, Checkmarx & LiteLLM hijack: Cloud Security Alliance, Trend Micro Victims, scope, ransomware tie & May 12 open-source + $1,000 bounty: Tenable, Datadog June 1 – Red Hat / Miasma wave (backdoored Claude Code): Microsoft Threat Intelligence, JFrog June 3–4 – second wave (binding.gyp install-script bypass): StepSecurity, ReversingLabs JFrog Security Research, Socket, Orca Security, Dark Reading 294,842 secrets across 6,943 machines; 28.65M new secrets in 2025; AI-service leaks +81%; 64% of 2022 secrets still valid in 2026; only 40% run package-malware detection: GitGuardian State of

An active attack is planting backdoors inside Claude Code right now. If you use npm, your credentials may already be compromised.

Last week a malware campaign hit 32 npm packages under `@redhat-cloud-services`. About 117,000 weekly downloads. If you installed an affected version, the malware planted itself inside your Claude Code startup settings and your VS Code project config. Every time you open either one, the attacker's code runs. It silently collects every credential on your machine and sends them to the attacker. Uninstalling the package does not remove it. The malware lives outside the package, in your editor config, and it survives cleanup. If you try to cut off the attacker's access by revoking tokens before removing the malware, it can wipe your entire home directory and overwrite the files so they cannot be recovered. Three days later, a second wave hit 57 more packages using a new technique that bypasses the security tools that caught the first wave. 647,000 monthly downloads affected. Some malicious versions are still live on the npm registry. The worm is self-propagating, it uses stolen tokens to infect new packages automatically. Here is how one stolen credential made all of this possible. The attacker got one Red Hat employee's GitHub login. Probably stolen weeks earlier by malware that grabs saved passwords from browsers. With that login they had the employee's access level. They pushed malicious code directly into three Red Hat repositories, no review needed, and triggered Red Hat's own build pipeline to publish the poisoned packages to npm. The packages came out with valid security certificates because Red Hat's own pipeline built them. There was no known vulnerability to scan for, and the malicious code was brand new, so security tools that look for known threats found nothing. The tools that caught it flagged it within hours, but by then the downloads had already happened. 32 packages. About 117,000 weekly downloads. 96 poisoned versions pushed in two waves on June 1. Once installed on a developer's machine, the malware collected every credential it could find. AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, Kubernetes, SSH keys, GitHub tokens, npm tokens. It checked for CrowdStrike and SentinelOne before acting to avoid detection. Then it set up persistence. It planted code in two places: ~/.claude/settings.json and .vscode/tasks.json. These run automatically when you open Claude Code or open a project. The attacker gets re-entry every time, even after you clean up the original package. It also registered the company's build servers as machines the attacker controls remotely. That is persistent access to the build infrastructure itself. And if you rotate the attacker's credentials and cut off access, the malware wipes your home directory. Overwrites files so they cannot be recovered. The attacker built this in on purpose so companies think twice before revoking access. The group behind this is TeamPCP. Red Hat is their latest target, not their first. Same methods, same playbook, running since late 2025. Confirmed victims: GitHub (3,800 internal repos stolen, listed for sale at $50K), Mistral AI (450 repos, $25K), OpenAI (two employees hit), the European Commission (90+ GB exfiltrated), Eli Lilly ($70K), plus TanStack, UiPath, Zapier, Postman. Fortune 500 banks, a major semiconductor manufacturer, and government agencies confirmed but not named. Total across all waves: 487 confirmed organizations, nearly 300,000 secrets harvested. They are now working with a ransomware group. The worm's source code was open-sourced by TeamPCP on May 12. Anyone can build their own version now. Copycats are already active. Sources: Red Hat / Miasma attack: Microsoft Threat Intelligence — https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2026/06/02/preinstall-persistence-inside-red-hat-npm-miasma-credential-stealing-campaign/ Second wave (Phantom Gyp): StepSecurity — https://www.stepsecurity.io/blog/binding-gyp-npm-supply-chain-attack-spreads-like-worm Editor persistence + cleanup steps: Snyk — https://snyk.io/blog/miasma-supply-chain-attack-malicious-code-redhat-cloud-services-npm-packages/ TeamPCP victims and scope: Tenable — https://www.tenable.com/blog/mini-shai-hulud-frequently-asked-questions 2025 secrets stats: GitGuardian State of Secrets Sprawl 2026 — https://www.gitguardian.com/state-of-secrets-sprawl-report-2026 CISA GovCloud leak: Krebs on Security — https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/05/cisa-admin-leaked-aws-govcloud-keys-on-github/ If you use npm, i wrote in the comments what to do, in order. Do not skip the order, it matters. submitted by /u/johnypita [link] [comments]

AI helped our test suites hit 95% coverage and bugs still slipped through. So PRs now climb an autonomous verification ladder before a human reviews.

Intro + Context [TLDR at the bottom for my skim readers 😄] We run Claude Code and Codex with a full agentic pipeline across our entire SDLC. Our workflow, by default, incorporates cross-model auditing, where Claude and Codex usually have to converge on SDLC gates and we tend to lean into each model as an implementer, depending on what we have found to be their strong suits. Even with this, though, we have to stay honest with ourselves and realize that LLMs, no matter how capable, are still probabilistic systems. Like many people, AI has been increasingly writing more of our code and even more of our test suites. Also like many.. we've ended up with bottle necks at the verification loop. The general sentiment around AI even in 2026 is all over the place, but Sonar's Sate of Code Dev Survey for 2026 still reported only 4% of respondents completely agree AI code is functionally correct. So the bottlenecks move from writing code to verifying it. That's pretty much a consensus now. I think the thing people don't talk much about, too, is that when the same model family writes the code and the test, a green suite usually proves agreement more than it proves correctness. Even in our case, where there's a cross-model audit and a pretty rigorous review loop, we still see that when human verification happens, the test suite can still have effectively useless tests (enforcing broken code strictly, testing exact implementation instead of the behavior, over mocking with unit tests at data boundaries etc.) We've spent a lot of time this year working on solving many of the verification bottlenecks as most of our engineers evolved into a massive QA department. Part of that solve is a verification ladder with multiple levels that fires in sequence depending on the shape of the work. The Verification Ladder Note: the below fires as soon as a PR gets put up and is marked ready. (Marking ready for us always has gated our CI/CD, Coderabbit review, etc and so it was the logical gate as well to trigger the new autonomous verification ladder). rung what runs what it proves evidence strength L0 - Static Proofs Build, typecheck, lint, machine verified properties The easy "can't be wrong in these ways" the usual compile time guarantee layer. Statically Proven L1 - Falsification Tests (two tiers) T1: Unit/integration with a kill check. Force an isolated agent to break the behavior, ensure the test fails. T2: Tests run against main (should fail) and against the changed branches (should pass). The test can fail and detects a change proves the test actually guards something. Demonstrated L2 - Simulation Seeded env, fault injection, simulated failure states (back end error classes) the failure modes the tests claim they catch should actually get caught Exercised L3 - Real Surface QA Browser Agent on a prod like ephemeral environment of the changed + adjacent surfaces. Artifacts uploaded to drive and linked to a PR for human review A human can audit evidence instead of logs/raw code Witnessed L0 is pretty common, and I feel like most people do this today, especially if they work in languages that have static typing, build or compile steps. Honestly, that is one of the main values in using languages that can mechanically prove a lot of common bug and failure states at compile. L1 having two tiers is mostly a result of the most common human verification catch (test that doesn't actually prove/test anything material) "proven" in with an autonomous agentic pattern. the falsification receipt running the new test against main, it is going red, and then running the test against the actual changed code should be going green and that, running in our CI/CD pipeline as pipeline evidence, instead of developer discipline, makes this a cheap test that actually catches quite a bit of test coverage theater that LLMs love to produce the kill check (mostly for risk paths only) deliberately break the behavior to prove the test cards against the behavior you don't want going forward, not just that it discriminates the before and after behavior. keep in mind that since this is done using an agent, this is probabilistic as well and has its flaws, but the against main run helps prove the test detects change, and the kill check proves it would catch real future regressions one of our testing philosophy skills explicitly gives the LLM a frame of reference to write tests in in a way where you could rewrite the test in a new language and mechanically prove the new code enforces the same behaviors L2 - I had done several benchmarks. Actually, one I posted that got a lot of traction here on Reddit was on Opus 4.6 vs Sonnet 4.6 for review + browser qa. In that benchmark at the time, the model could not prove the entirety of the 23 checks that we were testing against in the benchmark. The models have improved sufficiently that this level basically closes that and gives the agent a way to simulate and prove all the beha

5 Stars! Websites to Native Mobile App Plugin/Skills!

Small update: WebToMobile just hit 5 stars on GitHub 🎉 I know that’s tiny in internet numbers, but it means a lot because this started as a very specific problem: “Can we give AI coding agents a better workflow for turning websites into mobile apps?” Instead of asking Claude/Cursor/Codex to “make this website an app” and hoping for the best, WebToMobile gives the agent a structured path: - audit the website or repo - separate URL-only UI/UX work from real source-code migration - map web routes to mobile screens - identify reusable vs rewrite-required code - flag mobile-native gaps like auth, storage, cookies, OAuth, uploads, etc. - create a Markdown migration plan - wait for approval before writing code - build with Expo React Native - run QA/review checks The repo now includes commands for: - `/web-to-mobile` - `/mobile-resume` - `/mobile-scan` - `/mobile-review` - `/mobile-audit` - `/mobile-qa` It works best with a GitHub repo or local project, but live URLs can still be used for UI/UX planning. Repo: https://github.com/suntay44/web-to-mobile-magic-plugin Thanks to everyone who starred it or gave feedback. Next focus is making the install/update flow cleaner and improving framework coverage. submitted by /u/suntay44 [link] [comments]

Open-source Website to Mobile coding-agent plugin/skills

I’ve been working on a plugin/skill set for Claude Code, Cursor, and Codex called WebToMobile. The idea is simple: if you have a website or web app and want to turn it into a mobile app, the agent should not just start generating random React Native screens. Instead, it follows a migration workflow: Audits your website, GitHub repo, or local project Maps web routes/pages to mobile screens Separates reusable code from rewrite-required code Flags mobile-native gaps like auth, storage, cookies, OAuth redirects, uploads, push, etc. Creates a Markdown migration plan/checklist Waits for your approval Builds in Expo React Native Runs QA/review checks before claiming anything is done Important distinction: - If you give it only a live URL, it can help with UI/UX and visual structure. - If you give it the repo/local code, it can do a much deeper migration plan and implementation. It includes commands like: /web-to-mobile /mobile-resume /mobile-scan /mobile-review /mobile-audit /mobile-qa I built it because “make this website into an app” is usually too vague for AI agents. They need a defined path, not just a better prompt. Repo: https://github.com/suntay44/web-to-mobile-magic-plugin Would love feedback from people building with Expo, React Native, Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex. submitted by /u/suntay44 [link] [comments]

Claude Code Source Deep Dive - Part VI: Multi-Agent System && Part VII: Context Compression (Compact) and Memory System

Reader’s Note A source-map leak exposed 512,000 lines of Claude Code's TypeScript, giving us a rare look inside one of the world's most advanced AI coding agents. This series explores what I found. Estimated completion time: 2 days. Actual completion time: ∞. Anyway, here's the next chapter. Claude Code Source Deep Dive - Part VI: Multi-Agent System 6.1 Built-in Agents general-purpose (general) You are an agent for Claude Code, Anthropic's official CLI for Claude. Given the user's message, you should use the tools available to complete the task. Complete the task fully—don't gold-plate, but don't leave it half-done. When you complete the task, respond with a concise report covering what was done and any key findings — the caller will relay this to the user, so it only needs the essentials. Tools: all available Model: inherit Explore (code exploration) You are a file search specialist for Claude Code. You excel at thoroughly navigating and exploring codebases. === CRITICAL: READ-ONLY MODE - NO FILE MODIFICATIONS === [Strictly prohibit any file modification] Your strengths: - Rapidly finding files using glob patterns - Searching code and text with powerful regex patterns - Reading and analyzing file contents NOTE: You are meant to be a fast agent that returns output as quickly as possible. Make efficient use of tools and spawn multiple parallel tool calls. Tools: read-only (Agent, FileEdit, FileWrite, NotebookEdit disabled) Model: external → Haiku (fast), internal → inherit omitClaudeMd: true Plan (architecture planning) You are a software architect and planning specialist for Claude Code. Your role is to explore the codebase and design implementation plans. === CRITICAL: READ-ONLY MODE - NO FILE MODIFICATIONS === ## Your Process 1. Understand Requirements 2. Explore Thoroughly (read files, find patterns, understand architecture) 3. Design Solution (trade-offs, architectural decisions) 4. Detail the Plan (step-by-step strategy, dependencies, challenges) ## Required Output End your response with: ### Critical Files for Implementation List 3-5 files most critical for implementing this plan. Tools: read-only Model: inherit omitClaudeMd: true verification (verification) You are a verification specialist. Your job is not to confirm the implementation works — it's to try to break it. You have two documented failure patterns. First, verification avoidance: when faced with a check, you find reasons not to run it. Second, being seduced by the first 80%: you see a polished UI or a passing test suite and feel inclined to pass it. === CRITICAL: DO NOT MODIFY THE PROJECT === === VERIFICATION STRATEGY === Frontend: Start dev server → browser automation → curl subresources → tests Backend: Start server → curl endpoints → verify response shapes → edge cases CLI: Run with inputs → verify stdout/stderr/exit codes → test edge inputs Bug fixes: Reproduce original bug → verify fix → run regression tests === RECOGNIZE YOUR OWN RATIONALIZATIONS === - "The code looks correct based on my reading" — reading is not verification. Run it. - "The implementer's tests already pass" — the implementer is an LLM. Verify independently. - "This is probably fine" — probably is not verified. Run it. - "I don't have a browser" — did you check for browser automation tools? - "This would take too long" — not your call. If you catch yourself writing an explanation instead of a command, stop. Run it. === OUTPUT FORMAT (REQUIRED) === ### Check: [what you're verifying] **Command run:** [exact command] **Output observed:** [actual output — copy-paste, not paraphrased] **Result: PASS** (or FAIL) VERDICT: PASS / FAIL / PARTIAL Tools: read-only (temp directory writable) Model: inherit Runs in background claude-code-guide (usage guide) Helps users understand Claude Code/SDK/API usage Dynamic system prompt includes user custom skills, agents, MCP server info Fetches docs from official URLs 6.2 Sub-Agent Enhancement Prompt Notes: Agent threads always have their cwd reset between bash calls, so please only use absolute file paths. In your final response, share file paths (always absolute) that are relevant. Include code snippets only when the exact text is load-bearing. For clear communication the assistant MUST avoid using emojis. Do not use a colon before tool calls. 6.3 Coordinator Mode When enabled, the main agent becomes a scheduler: Coordinator role: guide workers for research/implement/verify Agent tool: creates async workers SendMessage tool: continue existing workers TaskStop tool: cancel workers Worker results arrive as XML Workflow: Research → Synthesis → Implementation → Verification 6.4 Fork Sub-Agents Fork inherits the full parent-agent context and shares prompt cache. Build method: Copy parent message history Replace tool_result with byte-identical placeholder text (to keep cache keys consistent) Add per-child instruction text block Advantages: very low

Claude Code Source Deep Dive (Part 5) — Literal Translation & Tool-Call Loop Self-Repair Core Mechanism

Reader’s Note On March 31, 2026, the Claude Code package Anthropic published to npm accidentally included .map files that can be reverse-engineered to recover source code. Because the source maps pointed to the original TypeScript sources, these 512,000 lines of TypeScript finally put everything on the table: how a top-tier AI coding agent organizes context, calls tools, manages multiple agents, and even hides easter eggs. I read the source from the entrypoint all the way through prompts, the task system, the tool layer, and hidden features. I will continue to deconstruct the codebase and provide in-depth analysis of the engineering architecture behind Claude Code. 3.14 EnterWorktree Tool (Enter Worktree) Create isolated git worktree and switch current session into it. When to Use: - User explicitly says "worktree" When NOT to Use: - User asks to create/switch branches - User asks to fix bug or work on feature without mentioning worktrees - NEVER use unless user explicitly mentions "worktree" Behavior: - Creates new git worktree inside `.claude/worktrees/` with new branch - Switches session's working directory to new worktree 3.15 AskUserQuestion Tool (Ask User Question) Ask user multiple choice questions to gather info, clarify ambiguity, understand preferences, make decisions, offer choices. Usage Notes: - Users always able to select "Other" for custom text input - Use multiSelect: true to allow multiple answers - If recommend specific option, make first option with "(Recommended)" at end Preview Feature: - Use optional `preview` field on options when presenting concrete artifacts needing visual comparison (ASCII/HTML mockups, code snippets, diagrams) - Preview content rendered as monospace markdown - When any option has preview, UI switches to side-by-side layout 3.16 LSP Tool (Language Server) Interact with Language Server Protocol servers for code intelligence. Supported Operations: - goToDefinition, findReferences, hover, documentSymbol, workspaceSymbol, goToImplementation, prepareCallHierarchy, incomingCalls, outgoingCalls All Operations Require: - filePath, line (1-based), character (1-based) 3.17 Sleep Tool (Wait) Wait for specified duration. Usage: - When user tells to sleep/rest - When nothing to do / waiting for something - May receive periodic check-ins (tick tags) - Can call concurrently with other tools - Prefer over `Bash(sleep ...)` — doesn't hold shell process - Each wake-up costs API call - Prompt cache expires after 5 min inactivity 3.18 CronCreate Tool (Scheduled Task) Schedule prompts to run at future times. Uses standard 5-field cron in user's local timezone. One-Shot Tasks (recurring: false): - "remind me at X" → pin minute/hour/day to specific values Recurring Jobs (recurring: true, default): - "every 5 min" → "*/5 * * * *" - "hourly" → "0 * * * *" CRITICAL: Avoid :00 and :30 Minute Marks (when task allows) - Every user asking "9am" gets 0 9, causing thundering herd - When approximate: pick minute NOT 0 or 30 - "every morning around 9" → "57 8 * * *" (not "0 9 * * *") Durability: - Default (durable: false): lives only in Claude session - durable: true: writes to .claude/scheduled_tasks.json Recurring tasks auto-expire after 7 days. 3.19 TeamCreate Tool (Create Team) Create team to coordinate multiple agents working on project. When to Use (Proactively): - User explicitly asks to use team, swarm, or group agents - Task complex enough for parallel work Team Workflow: 1. Create team with TeamCreate 2. Create tasks using Task tools 3. Spawn teammates using Agent tool with team_name + name params 4. Assign tasks using TaskUpdate with owner 5. Teammates work on assigned tasks 6. Shutdown gracefully via SendMessage with shutdown_request IMPORTANT: Always refer to teammates by NAME. Plain text output NOT visible to other agents — MUST call SendMessage tool to communicate. 3.20 ToolSearch Tool (Deferred Tool Search) Fetch full schema definitions for deferred tools so they can be called. Query Forms: - "select:Read,Edit,Grep" — fetch exact tools by name - "notebook jupyter" — keyword search, up to max_results best matches - "+slack send" — require "slack" in name, rank by remaining terms submitted by /u/Ill-Leopard-6559 [link] [comments]

Client Onboarding Solutions

I'm an AI automation consultant working with a fractional CRO company called Mo Commas. They work with startups to help them raise capital and close deals — think cold outreach, call scripts, pitch decks, investor materials, all of it. They're the sales arm for founders who don't have one. Right now their process is entirely manual inside Claude, and I'm trying to help them automate it. Here's what they're currently doing: Existing workflow (all manual, all copy-paste): They have a "Client Creator" Claude Project where they dump Plaud call transcripts and any sales collateral a founder gives them Claude synthesizes everything into a structured markdown "Client Brain" document They create a brand new Claude Project for that client and paste the brain doc in as the system prompt From that project, they generate all the sales assets — call scripts, email sequences, pitch decks, etc. Repeat for every new client It's a clean process conceptually, but it's extremely manual. Two founders are doing all of this by hand. What I'm trying to build: I want to take this from 5 manual steps to ideally 1 or 2. The input is a Plaud transcript + any sales collateral. The output is a full suite of sales assets ready to hand to the client. Where I'm stuck architecturally: The obvious problem is that Claude Projects can't be created via API — it's a claude.ai UI feature only. So the "one project per client brain as system prompt" model doesn't translate cleanly to an automated pipeline. The three paths I'm weighing: Path A: Keep them in claude.ai, build a lightweight tool that automates the brain generation and spits out a markdown file they paste into a new Project manually. Reduces steps but doesn't fully automate. Path B: Abandon claude.ai Projects entirely, build a small web app powered by the Claude API where each client has a stored system prompt in a database, Will uploads a transcript, hits a button, and the full pipeline runs — brain → assets → output to Google Drive. Path C: Potentially build this with Claude Cowork, using schedules and MCP to pull transcripts from Plaud and bucket them to allow Claude to decide if it should onboard them or just add to existing transcripts for clients. My constraints: The founders are 5/10 technical. Will leans in, Chris doesn't. Whatever I build needs to feel simple on their end. I'll eventually hand this off, so I don't want to create something that breaks the moment I'm not around. They're on Claude Max (personal plan), not the API tier, so I'd need to introduce API costs if I go Path B. My questions for the community: How would you build this? Is there a path I'm not seeing? Has anyone built a per-client "brain" architecture at scale with the Claude API? And is there a cleaner way to handle the Plaud transcript ingestion side — their transcripts live in Will's Plaud account and I'm not sure if Plaud exposes a usable API. Would love to hear how other builders would approach this. submitted by /u/MaybeRemarkable5839 [link] [comments]

I stress-tested Kimi K2.6 against Claude Opus 4.7 on a quick coding-agent task

I tested Claude Opus 4.7 and Kimi K2.6 on the same coding agent task i.e. build an AI Fix Runner that takes a broken repo, runs its tests, identifies the failure, applies a patch, reruns the test, and exposes the final diff/logs through an API and UI. The goal was not to benchmark syntax completion or simple repo edits. I wanted to test model behavior on a less familiar integration path: shifting execution from local processes into remote sandboxes. I used Tensorlake specifically because the sandbox API is newer and integration-heavy. This made the test more about whether the model could reason through unfamiliar infra and produce a working implementation. Setup: Claude Opus 4.7 through Claude Code Kimi K2.6 through OpenCode via OpenRouter Pricing context: Claude Opus 4.7: $5/M input, $25/M output Kimi K2.6: $0.95/M input ($0.16 cached input), $4/M output So, what made it interesting is if Kimi's lower cost can handle a crazy workflow. To be clear, comparing Kimi K2.6 directly with Opus 4.7 is not completely fair. The model classes, pricing, and expected capability levels are very different. I mainly wanted to see how far an open model could get on the same task at a fraction of the price, and whether the performance/price tradeoff made sense for coding-agent work Test 1: Local AI Fix Runner First, both models had to build the local version. The app needed to: create fixture repos with intentional bugs run install/test/build locally capture stdout/stderr apply patches rerun tests after patching expose run state through backend APIs show logs and patched source in the UI reject obviously unsafe commands Claude Opus 4.7 produced a working implementation. It built the fixture repos, repair flow, API endpoints, UI, logs, and patched-file inspection. The main pipeline worked: install -> test fails -> patch -> test passes -> build passes It had one real bug: workspace persistence. KEEP_WORKSPACES=true was supposed to preserve the final workspace, but the backend loaded .env from the wrong location. One follow-up fixed it. Kimi K2.6 got some backend pieces working and could trigger repair runs, but the implementation was incomplete. The biggest miss was patched-source inspection, which is core for this app because you need to verify exactly what the agent changed. Rough numbers: Opus: $13.84, around 39 min wall time Kimi: around $3.40, around 1h 39 min wall time Result: Opus did it good, Kimi could not The difference in the price, and the time taken is just insane. Test 2: Sandbox Integration Second, I asked both models to move execution from local processes into Tensorlake Sandboxes. This was the main stress test. The model had to: create a sandbox copy the repo into the sandbox execute install/test/build remotely capture logs from sandbox commands apply patches inside the sandbox rerun validation clean up sandbox state keep the original local runner working This is where I wanted to test performance on something newer and less likely to be in the model’s training data. Claude Opus 4.7 handled this cleanly. It added a Tensorlake runner, kept the local runner abstraction intact, wired env/config handling, and created a live test path using TENSORLAKE_API_KEY. More importantly, the local regression path still passed after the sandbox backend was added. Kimi K2.6 was given the working Opus local implementation as the base, so it only had to add Tensorlake execution. Even with that advantage, it failed to produce a clean sandbox flow after 150k+ tokens. It got stuck around the integration layer and never reached a reliable test/build/patch loop inside Tensorlake. Rough numbers: Opus Tensorlake run: around $24.39, around 23 min Kimi Tensorlake run: failed after a long run, 150k+ tokens Result: Opus passed, Kimi failed Takeaway Kimi K2.6 is much cheaper and can handle some bounded coding work, but it struggled once the task involved external execution infra, sandbox lifecycle, env/config handling, and regression safety. Claude Opus 4.7 was expensive, but much stronger at: preserving architecture adding a new execution backend handling config bugs maintaining testability reasoning through unfamiliar infra For me, this was less about “which model writes code” and more about “which model can integrate a newer system without breaking the app.” On that specific test, Opus was clearly miles ahead. Full breakdown with prompts, code, screenshots, demos, and cost details: https://www.tensorlake.ai/blog/claude-opus-4-7-vs-kimi-k2-6-real-world-coding-test Curious if anyone has gotten Kimi K2.6 working reliably on coding-agent workflows. submitted by /u/shricodev [link] [comments]

Reconsider using Claude, hit by too many false positive blocks, and hundreds of user reports

https://preview.redd.it/hevkfnz46v2h1.png?width=3170&format=png&auto=webp&s=0abde4ef1d7d647da9e376db88ef4ae5f429c5e9 reproducible example: claude -p "please read source https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/modules/device_orientation/device_motion_event_pump.cc and explain to me" related issues on github: False positive policy block on OSS governance/security files (CodeQL, CODEOWNERS, CoC) #61688 [BUG] CVP repeatedly declines homelab sysadmins — no path for infrastructure owners managing personal hardware #61668 [Bug] Safety classifier blocks routine code analysis for paid users (started 2026-05-23) #61664 [BUG] False positive - legitimate medical-education content flagged as unsafe #61663 False-positive Usage Policy block mid-session (req_011CbJudbehY5Yi6gtM4xko4) #61660 [BUG] Persistent false-positive AUP violation blocks entire AI research project (Opus 4.7) #61659 [Bug] Anthropic API Error: Usage Policy violation blocking TTRPG content in Claude Code CLI #61658 False-positive content filter blocks benign UI animation prompts in Claude Code #61657 [Bug] Anthropic API Error: Overly aggressive Usage Policy filtering on biomedical research requests #61656 [BUG] AUP repeatedly throwing false positives - live issue ongoing - hundreds of similar reports #61655 [BUG] AUP false positives during scientific manuscript editing request #61654 [BUG] : API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy #61653 False positive: Usage Policy block on technical markdown integration task #61652 [BUG] Safety classifier repeatedly blocks legitimate constructed language (conlang) development #61650 False-positive cyber-safeguard intervention on legitimate systems-engineering work in Claude Code #61646 [BUG] erroneous API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request #61645 [BUG] False positive safety block: triggered without apparent reason during game dev session #61644 submitted by /u/jimages [link] [comments]

Managed Agents self-hosted sandboxes - what's new in CC 2.1.145 (+20,218 tokens)

NEW: Data: Managed Agents self-hosted sandboxes — Adds reference documentation for self_hosted Managed Agents environments, covering outbound worker polling, environment keys, SDK and CLI worker paths, webhook-driven wakeups, orchestration, monitoring, cloud-vs-self-hosted differences, credential handling, and customer-owned security responsibilities. NEW: Skill: Run app — Adds a general skill for launching and driving a project's actual runtime surface, first preferring project-specific run skills and otherwise choosing patterns for CLIs, servers, browser apps, Electron apps, TUIs, and libraries. NEW: Skill: Run skill generator — Adds guidance for creating project-specific run- skills, including verified setup/build/run steps, driver or smoke-harness creation, clean-environment verification, and examples for browser, CLI, Electron, library, TUI, and server/API projects. NEW: Skill: Run skill template — Adds a reusable template for project-specific run skills with sections for prerequisites, setup, build, agent and human run paths, tests, gotchas, and troubleshooting. NEW: Skill: Run browser-driven web app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for web apps that starts a dev server, waits on real readiness, drives it with chromium-cli, captures screenshots, and records recurring gotchas. NEW: Skill: Run CLI tool example — Adds an example run skill pattern for CLI tools covering installation, representative invocations, expected output, exit codes, and stdin behavior. NEW: Skill: Run Electron desktop GUI app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for Electron apps that launches under xvfb, exposes a Playwright-driven REPL, captures screenshots, and documents desktop automation pitfalls. NEW: Skill: Run library SDK example — Adds an example run skill pattern for libraries and SDKs focused on build/test steps plus a minimal public-boundary smoke example. NEW: Skill: Run TUI interactive terminal app example — Adds an example run skill pattern for terminal UIs using tmux to launch, send input, capture panes, document key commands, and clean up. NEW: Skill: Run web server API example — Adds an example run skill pattern for servers and APIs with background launch, readiness polling, smoke curl verification, and shutdown guidance. REMOVED: System Reminder: Plan mode is active (iterative) — Removes the iterative plan-mode reminder that told agents to maintain a plan file while repeatedly exploring, updating the plan, and asking the user questions before exiting plan mode. Agent Prompt: Managed Agents onboarding flow — Updates the introductory Managed Agents explanation to include self_hosted environments where the user's own worker runs tool execution, and distinguishes cloud environment networking/packages from self-hosted infrastructure. Agent Prompt: /review-pr slash command — Changes the PR detail command to request specific JSON fields from gh pr view, including title, body, author, refs, state, diff stats, changed file count, and labels. Agent Prompt: Status line setup — Adds repository identity and current-branch PR metadata to the status-line input schema, with examples for displaying owner/name and PR number/review state. Data: Anthropic CLI — Adds self-hosted environment CLI references for ant beta:worker poll/run and ant beta:environments:work stats/stop. Data: Claude Platform on AWS reference — Clarifies that Claude Platform on AWS has first-party API parity except for self-hosted sandboxes, which are unavailable there and should use cloud environments instead. Data: Live documentation sources — Adds Managed Agents self-hosted sandbox and self-hosted sandbox security documentation URLs to the live documentation source list. Data: Managed Agents core concepts — Documents sessions.update() for changing agent.tools, agent.mcp_servers, and vault_ids on an idle existing session as a session-local override. Data: Managed Agents endpoint reference — Adds self-hosted environment work queue endpoints and clarifies that session updates can replace tools, MCP servers, and vault IDs; also notes that self-hosted environment configs are just {"type":"self_hosted"}. Data: Managed Agents environments and resources — Replaces the old restricted-networking example with limited networking plus allow_package_managers and allow_mcp_servers, and adds self-hosted sandbox guidance for running tool execution in user-controlled infrastructure. Data: Managed Agents overview — Adds self-hosted sandboxes as a use case and updates environment guidance so config.type can be either cloud or self_hosted; also points to sessions.update() for per-session tool/MCP/vault changes. Data: Managed Agents reference — cURL — Updates the environment creation example to use limited networking with package-manager and MCP-server allowances. Data: Managed Agents tools and skills — Clarifies where prebuilt agent tools and MCP tools run for cloud vs. self-hosted environments, and adds notes about session-local tool/MCP/