News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents?. Parent comment

Re:Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents? by yorwba on Tuesday February 17, 2026 @07:48AM (#47046919)
In this context, "performance" means "does it do what we want it to do" not "does it do it quickly". Quality of output is what they're measuring, speed is not a consideration.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents? by vidarh on Tuesday February 17, 2026 @04:55PM (#47053971)
The point is that whether it does what you tell it in a single iteration is less important then whether it avoids stupid mistakes. Any serious use will put it in a harness.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents? by yorwba on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @06:36AM (#47059962)
My point is that you misread the comment you replied to. (By the way, on page 2 of the paper: "we evaluate each LLM only within its corresponding harness.")
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents? by vidarh on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @02:01PM (#47064832)
> My point is that you misread the comment you replied to.

I'm not the person you replied to.

> (By the way, on page 2 of the paper: "we evaluate each LLM only within its corresponding harness.")

That has zero relevance to my comment or to the type of harnesses I talked about in the comment you replied to, nor in my comment up-thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evaluating AGENTS.md: are they helpful for coding agents? by yorwba on Wednesday February 18, 2026 @04:23PM (#47066631)
The only people I have replied to in this thread were vidarh, vidarh, and now vidarh again. I thought you were all the same person?
[ Parent | on HN ]