ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
83% Positive
Analyzed from 2415 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#claude#code#zot#coding#harnesses#don#agent#why#harness#https
Discussion (77 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
(I also merged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47941645 from that thread into this one)
Am i reading this right? Seems to suggest that this can be used with Claude Code Subscription, which isn't true i think. Did this pre-date the CC Subscription change? Or is it playing fast and loose with the rules hah.
Maybe it's using `-p`, which technically works for another few days i think lol. (That's going away.. what, June 1st? Something like that?)
....But also because feature creep, you can compile-in text-to-speech, speech-to-text, an interactive mode, an Android app, MCP/tool calling, multiple provider support, and now a really crappy web interface that only half works. It turns out vibe coding is harder/more time-consuming than it seems... Creating an alternative to beads made it more manageable, but I need multi-agent orchestration to code it so I don't have to babysit it and manually QA it (because just installing playwright and telling the AI to write tests doesn't really work).
Kind of a waste of time, but interesting learning experience. Now I know why there aren't a hundred magically awesome user tools out there... they're still not that easy to make.
[1] https://codeberg.org/mutablecc/zop
Being a single binary with modest memory requirements, I wonder if it can be used as a voice assistant in somethings like a rpi.
1: https://zed.dev/blog/terminal-threads
https://github.com/patriceckhart/zot/blob/main/packages/prov...
You literally can just give the model a bash tool and it will do just fine in fact it will most likely do better than majority of harnesses due to how well models are at bash.
The model do all the lifting. It really doesn't matter which harness you use.
This seems to be a benchmark but sadly between just primarily claude-code, codex,cursor and (gemini-cli?)
The one thing that would keep me from making the jump is CC’s auto mode.
Why not? Is it because you need to change the code?
Indeed! It would be difficult to deliberately design a more long-term-TCO-destructive ecosystem.
Effectively everything about it is "the one you throw away", and worse, effectively everyone uses it as if they're building the one to throw away.
JavaScript the ecosystem is mostly a flaming garbage dump of worms.
You can take measures to lower the pain of being in a toxically incompetent package space devolving faster than you can type commands.
it is fast, there is no fucking gateway fuckaround or any other similar issues, up and going in seconds
straight away I added two skills, that it wrote for itself, read my gmails and attachments, and browse the web, text browser first up, render page and screenshot with OCR for javascript heavy pages\
then I asked it, find the best value ram in my area, second hand as well as new, try gumtree and facebook marketplace, plus anything else relevant, bam - 15 seconds maybe a concise summarised range of options
then on another project, I told it to /study and then used the gmail plugin to access all the relevant gmails and attachments (which included minutes of all the meetings) and it was fully up to date with the project I am working on and ready to go
best agent I have used so far by a country mile, if you don't try it then that is your loss
did I mention it was fast, like 3x to 5x better productivity fast compared to openclaw, at least
one thing it does not do is support the up arrow/down arrow to scroll thru past commands, but you can just tell it, "run that websearch for ram again" etc, i will totally live witht his for all the other positives
DeepSeek Reasonix is better in terms of cache stability because that is a core tenet, which should honestly be table stakes for agentic tooling, but the TUI is kind of ugly and the tools also kind of suck (they pretend the sandboxed working directory is at /, which makes the model almost unable to use MCP servers that expect to be passed filesystem paths). On top of that, it doesn't expose the structuredContent of MCP server tool responses, which is like... the entire point of it? Now all my tools that return huge swaths of JSON data into structuredContent, which Claude Code can process perfectly fine, need an additional separate path to generate readable versions of it into content because Reasonix ignores structuredContent for some reason. That's supposed to be the model-side output, while content is the user-side output, but whatever.
I don't know how much more of this I can take. I'm in the process of working on my own harness essentially from scratch, manually, because I'm so fed up with all this vibecoded tooling that misses incredibly basic and obvious design.
I feel like Claude Code used to be from scratch like this and that was why it was so good, until they started vibecoding large swaths of it and stripping away all the power-user features and good taste that made it so wonderful before. Now it even has random, inexplicable problems like "API Error: 400 messages.1.content.15: `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response." which shouldn't even be able to happen!!
And like, I get the distillation angle of why thinking output was completely removed from Claude, but I work in bypass-permissions mode and I want to correct misunderstandings as I see them. This is different than wanting to review each edit.
Speaking of reviewing each edit, I hate that Reasonix doesn't print diffs, and just says "use git diff". Like, no? I want to see each change the agent made and when. I don't want to only see one diff at the end; that nearly ruins the point of conversation history.
I mostly still like Claude Code, but I agree it's getting buggy and bloated in their need to move so fast. With the June pricing changes I felt I needed to build an alternative quickly just in case, and so I can start looking at other models for my "claude -p" usage.
The videos from the makers of Pi are interesting with some useful information, but ultimately I came away deciding I would never want to use Pi.
It also helps that Pi & most harnesses don't work on a lot of older computers systems I'd like to be able to use a harness on. It's just API calls, there's no reason this shouldn't all work on much much older machines.
Have you tried pi? I don't think I am at your level, so I'd welcome some more advanced user's advice.
As for advice, what kind do you mean? Do you work on Pi?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjfbvDXpFls
Enjoy !
I've deliberately been post-poning harness building.
I think it's great as an obligatory learning experience.
But I'm hoping someone will come along and provide the "best of breed" harness:
I haven't tried other harnesses than those three. It's time-consuming, and does not align with my primary goals.I've been reimplementing a TUI library based on Ratatui, but drawing the UI components of OpenCode's OpenTUI and a bunch of Ratatui-adjacent components. Was hoping someone would separate the concerns and reverse engineer Claude's prompt engine and just not provide a UI for it. Make it modular so each part can be replaced by something better. There's only really 3 parts: TUI library, engine, and client-server (so you can choose between web or terminal, and so you can host the engine + server in the cloud, resume your sessions, and whatever enterprise features you want for session and memory management.
Here, "honest description" means the author didn't make something out to be more than it is. Perfect.
Ironically, LLMs don't apply that to the thing they're describing, but to their description itself. Meaning: when they say "honestly" it flags they have no idea and are about to be lazy, make it up, and confidently assert nonsense.
It's easiest to understand if you mentally insert a phrase:
"Honestly [you should disregard this because I am just making this up but], you made a great choice."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ive been coding for almost 20 years, and for the past few with Go. Nobody would believe that a project of this scale or even a much smaller one could be pulled off, halfway stable, over a couple of days. Not even with a blueprint or two in hand. Thats why it matters, and its totally fair, to point out when something is largely vibe-coded. "Vibe slopped" is meant more as a joke. The essential parts of the code I actually understand. Some of them I modified and overhauled myself.
zot is a learning project not production logic with peoples sensible data or lives depending on it. ;-)
As someone with 20 years of professional coding experience who vibe-codes certain tools in my current stack, I really get it.
But I'd still remove it from the front page, it just reads like you admit it sucks. Which vibe-coding a dev tool doesn't have to.
Judging from the animation, you actually cared to test the TUI quite a lot. (I've been vibe-coding TUI components without making an actual harness.)