Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by cuttothechase on Friday July 03, 2026 @03:52PM
(#48779206)
what is of really good use is a super factory. The super factory drives the factory which builds the harness of harnesses.
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by danmaz74 on Friday July 03, 2026 @04:50PM
(#48779800)
Wait until you hear about the giga-factories...
But seriously, if you care, this is just like using an existing library to do the lower level development work which I think is already pretty well done by the existing agents. It's not a design decision.
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by chickensong on Saturday July 04, 2026 @05:59AM
(#48784203)
the factory must grow
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by kank0de on Saturday July 04, 2026 @06:00AM
(#48784209)
is this a mindustry reference haha
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by chickensong on Saturday July 04, 2026 @08:29PM
(#48790265)
Factorio :)
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by kosolam on Friday July 03, 2026 @04:06PM
(#48779337)
Ha I’m doing the same. 2 months in or so, lost track of time a bit. Started with running all the usual suspects pi, claude code, codex, goose, but mostly migrated to own agent (ha!) for greater level of control. Also doing it in python for C lang as first target (ha!). Anyhow post a link if you’d release yours I’d be interested to take a look at adjacent work.
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by danmaz74 on Friday July 03, 2026 @04:46PM
(#48779772)
Interesting. From time to time I'm thinking about completely replacing the agent layer with my own, so that I would be able to enforce some rules at a lower level, but I'm wondering if it's worth it. What's been your experience with that?
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by kosolam on Friday July 03, 2026 @05:18PM
(#48780091)
I never looked back. Full control, and it’s really basic stuff you can have in an hour or so. And then you stop fighting with the external dependency and can move fast with your ideas.
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by pigpop on Friday July 03, 2026 @04:38PM
(#48779694)
I think this is a really good insight. It's definitely the back and forth in Claude Code or whatever harness you use that breaks flow and leads to frustration. This seems to be what Fable is solving since it is capable of doing much larger chunks of work without needing input constantly. Having a much more involved planning session than just turning on plan mode and then handing that off to be implemented is a much better approach. It's sort of what I've arrived at by accident where I often start planning changes in the web app and spend a long time going into detail about my vision and then working through the details without having Claude write any code other than perhaps a few small exploratory artifacts to visualize certain things and then taking all of that and moving over to Claude Code for implementation.
Re:Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of us...
by danmaz74 on Friday July 03, 2026 @04:53PM
(#48779823)
I've read several comments in the last few months citing this kind of approach. What I'm trying to do is to make the implementation phase more reliable.
By the way, if you're not doing that yet, something that can really help when doing UI/UX work is to have the agent create some mockups, and then tests based on those - I'm using Cucumber with some extra sauce for this. It's a very nice way to guide the agent in a falsifiable way.
Summarizing it a lot, what it does is:
* help you make better plans
* split plans into iterations, in a module-aware way for projects which have strict modularity (for now I'm doing this specifically with TypeScript and dependency cruiser) - this helps a lot when a project becomes complex
* ask an agent to implement an iteration, and then programmatically run a lot of checks after each iteration - not just regression tests, but also checks against project principles and conventions
* when possible, automatically fix deviations; when not possible, raise them to myself for an end-of-plan review
In this way, instead of having to constantly be engaged with the chat interface, with all the shorter or longer wait times which break my flow, I spend a lot of highly focused time during initial planning and final review. A plan implementation can go on for hours, and the various anchoring mechanisms added to the tool keep drift to a minimum.
At some point I'm planning to release this tool as open source. As this is the result of months of trial and errors, dogfooding, and vibecoding on the tool itself, the codebase is chaotic and the UI is still full of experiments I mostly basically abandoned, and I'm not used to releasing stuff in this status. But perhaps, in this brave new world, I should just do it and see what happens?