167 posts tagged “coding-agents”
Systems where an LLM writes code which is then compiled, executed, tested or otherwise exercised by tools in a loop.
2026
GIF optimization tool using WebAssembly and Gifsicle
I like to include animated GIF demos in my online writing, often recorded using LICEcap. There's an example in the Interactive explanations chapter.
These GIFs can be pretty big. I've tried a few tools for optimizing GIF file size and my favorite is Gifsicle by Eddie Kohler. It compresses GIFs by identifying regions of frames that have not changed and storing only the differences, and can optionally reduce the GIF color palette or apply visible lossy compression for greater size reductions.
Gifsicle is written in C and the default interface is a command line tool. I wanted a web interface so I could access it in my browser and visually preview and compare the different settings. [... 1,603 words]
Interactive explanations
When we lose track of how code written by our agents works we take on cognitive debt.
For a lot of things this doesn't matter: if the code fetches some data from a database and outputs it as JSON the implementation details are likely simple enough that we don't need to care. We can try out the new feature and make a very solid guess at how it works, then glance over the code to be sure.
Often though the details really do matter. If the core of our application becomes a black box that we don't fully understand we can no longer confidently reason about it, which makes planning new features harder and eventually slows our progress in the same way that accumulated technical debt does. [... 672 words]
An AI agent coding skeptic tries AI agent coding, in excessive detail. Another in the genre of "OK, coding agents got good in November" posts, this one is by Max Woolf and is very much worth your time. He describes a sequence of coding agent projects, each more ambitious than the last - starting with simple YouTube metadata scrapers and eventually evolving to this:
It would be arrogant to port Python's scikit-learn — the gold standard of data science and machine learning libraries — to Rust with all the features that implies.
But that's unironically a good idea so I decided to try and do it anyways. With the use of agents, I am now developing
rustlearn(extreme placeholder name), a Rust crate that implements not only the fast implementations of the standard machine learning algorithms such as logistic regression and k-means clustering, but also includes the fast implementations of the algorithms above: the same three step pipeline I describe above still works even with the more simple algorithms to beat scikit-learn's implementations.
Max also captures the frustration of trying to explain how good the models have got to an existing skeptical audience:
The real annoying thing about Opus 4.6/Codex 5.3 is that it’s impossible to publicly say “Opus 4.5 (and the models that came after it) are an order of magnitude better than coding LLMs released just months before it” without sounding like an AI hype booster clickbaiting, but it’s the counterintuitive truth to my personal frustration. I have been trying to break this damn model by giving it complex tasks that would take me months to do by myself despite my coding pedigree but Opus and Codex keep doing them correctly.
A throwaway remark in this post inspired me to ask Claude Code to build a Rust word cloud CLI tool, which it happily did.
Hoard things you know how to do
Many of my tips for working productively with coding agents are extensions of advice I've found useful in my career without them. Here's a great example of that: hoard things you know how to do.
A big part of the skill in building software is understanding what's possible and what isn't, and having at least a rough idea of how those things can be accomplished.
These questions can be broad or quite obscure. Can a web page run OCR operations in JavaScript alone? Can an iPhone app pair with a Bluetooth device even when the app isn't running? Can we process a 100GB JSON file in Python without loading the entire thing into memory first? [... 1,350 words]
It is hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last 2 months: not gradually and over time in the "progress as usual" way, but specifically this last December. There are a number of asterisks but imo coding agents basically didn’t work before December and basically work since - the models have significantly higher quality, long-term coherence and tenacity and they can power through large and long tasks, well past enough that it is extremely disruptive to the default programming workflow. [...]
Claude Code Remote Control (via) New Claude Code feature dropped yesterday: you can now run a "remote control" session on your computer and then use the Claude Code for web interfaces (on web, iOS and native desktop app) to send prompts to that session.
It's a little bit janky right now. Initially when I tried it I got the error "Remote Control is not enabled for your account. Contact your administrator." (but I am my administrator?) - then I logged out and back into the Claude Code terminal app and it started working:
claude remote-control
You can only run one session on your machine at a time. If you upgrade the Claude iOS app it then shows up as "Remote Control Session (Mac)" in the Code tab.
It appears not to support the --dangerously-skip-permissions flag (I passed that to claude remote-control and it didn't reject the option, but it also appeared to have no effect) - which means you have to approve every new action it takes.
I also managed to get it to a state where every prompt I tried was met by an API 500 error.
Restarting the program on the machine also causes existing sessions to start returning mysterious API errors rather than neatly explaining that the session has terminated.
I expect they'll iron out all of these issues relatively quickly. It's interesting to then contrast this to solutions like OpenClaw, where one of the big selling points is the ability to control your personal device from your phone.
Claude Code still doesn't have a documented mechanism for running things on a schedule, which is the other killer feature of the Claw category of software.
Update: I spoke too soon: also today Anthropic announced Schedule recurring tasks in Cowork, Claude Code's general agent sibling. These do include an important limitation:
Scheduled tasks only run while your computer is awake and the Claude Desktop app is open. If your computer is asleep or the app is closed when a task is scheduled to run, Cowork will skip the task, then run it automatically once your computer wakes up or you open the desktop app again.
I really hope they're working on a Cowork Cloud product.
Linear walkthroughs
Sometimes it's useful to have a coding agent give you a structured walkthrough of a codebase.
Maybe it's existing code you need to get up to speed on, maybe it's your own code that you've forgotten the details of, or maybe you vibe coded the whole thing and need to understand how it actually works.
Frontier models with the right agent harness can construct a detailed walkthrough to help you understand how code works. [... 524 words]
First run the tests
Automated tests are no longer optional when working with coding agents.
The old excuses for not writing them - that they're time consuming and expensive to constantly rewrite while a codebase is rapidly evolving - no longer hold when an agent can knock them into shape in just a few minutes.
They're also vital for ensuring AI-generated code does what it claims to do. If the code has never been executed it's pure luck if it actually works when deployed to production. [... 359 words]
Ladybird adopts Rust, with help from AI (via) Really interesting case-study from Andreas Kling on advanced, sophisticated use of coding agents for ambitious coding projects with critical code. After a few years hoping Swift's platform support outside of the Apple ecosystem would mature they switched tracks to Rust their memory-safe language of choice, starting with an AI-assisted port of a critical library:
Our first target was LibJS , Ladybird's JavaScript engine. The lexer, parser, AST, and bytecode generator are relatively self-contained and have extensive test coverage through test262, which made them a natural starting point.
I used Claude Code and Codex for the translation. This was human-directed, not autonomous code generation. I decided what to port, in what order, and what the Rust code should look like. It was hundreds of small prompts, steering the agents where things needed to go. [...]
The requirement from the start was byte-for-byte identical output from both pipelines. The result was about 25,000 lines of Rust, and the entire port took about two weeks. The same work would have taken me multiple months to do by hand. We’ve verified that every AST produced by the Rust parser is identical to the C++ one, and all bytecode generated by the Rust compiler is identical to the C++ compiler’s output. Zero regressions across the board.
Having an existing conformance testing suite of the quality of test262 is a huge unlock for projects of this magnitude, and the ability to compare output with an existing trusted implementation makes agentic engineering much more of a safe bet.
Writing about Agentic Engineering Patterns
I’ve started a new project to collect and document Agentic Engineering Patterns—coding practices and patterns to help get the best results out of this new era of coding agent development we find ourselves entering.
[... 554 words]Writing code is cheap now
The biggest challenge in adopting agentic engineering practices is getting comfortable with the consequences of the fact that writing code is cheap now.
Code has always been expensive. Producing a few hundred lines of clean, tested code takes most software developers a full day or more. Many of our engineering habits, at both the macro and micro level, are built around this core constraint.
At the macro level we spend a great deal of time designing, estimating and planning out projects, to ensure that our expensive coding time is spent as efficiently as possible. Product feature ideas are evaluated in terms of how much value they can provide in exchange for that time - a feature needs to earn its development costs many times over to be worthwhile! [... 661 words]
Red/green TDD
"Use red/green TDD" is a pleasingly succinct way to get better results out of a coding agent.
TDD stands for Test Driven Development. It's a programming style where you ensure every piece of code you write is accompanied by automated tests that demonstrate the code works.
The most disciplined form of TDD is test-first development. You write the automated tests first, confirm that they fail, then iterate on the implementation until the tests pass. [... 280 words]
The Claude C Compiler: What It Reveals About the Future of Software. On February 5th Anthropic's Nicholas Carlini wrote about a project to use parallel Claudes to build a C compiler on top of the brand new Opus 4.6
Chris Lattner (Swift, LLVM, Clang, Mojo) knows more about C compilers than most. He just published this review of the code.
Some points that stood out to me:
- Good software depends on judgment, communication, and clear abstraction. AI has amplified this.
- AI coding is automation of implementation, so design and stewardship become more important.
- Manual rewrites and translation work are becoming AI-native tasks, automating a large category of engineering effort.
Chris is generally impressed with CCC (the Claude C Compiler):
Taken together, CCC looks less like an experimental research compiler and more like a competent textbook implementation, the sort of system a strong undergraduate team might build early in a project before years of refinement. That alone is remarkable.
It's a long way from being a production-ready compiler though:
Several design choices suggest optimization toward passing tests rather than building general abstractions like a human would. [...] These flaws are informative rather than surprising, suggesting that current AI systems excel at assembling known techniques and optimizing toward measurable success criteria, while struggling with the open-ended generalization required for production-quality systems.
The project also leads to deep open questions about how agentic engineering interacts with licensing and IP for both open source and proprietary code:
If AI systems trained on decades of publicly available code can reproduce familiar structures, patterns, and even specific implementations, where exactly is the boundary between learning and copying?
Reached the stage of parallel agent psychosis where I've lost a whole feature - I know I had it yesterday, but I can't seem to find the branch or worktree or cloud instance or checkout with it in.
... found it! Turns out I'd been hacking on a random prototype in /tmp and then my computer crashed and rebooted and I lost the code... but it's all still there in ~/.claude/projects/ session logs and Claude Code can extract it out and spin up the missing feature again.
SWE-bench February 2026 leaderboard update (via) SWE-bench is one of the benchmarks that the labs love to list in their model releases. The official leaderboard is infrequently updated but they just did a full run of it against the current generation of models, which is notable because it's always good to see benchmark results like this that weren't self-reported by the labs.
The fresh results are for their "Bash Only" benchmark, which runs their mini-swe-bench agent (~9,000 lines of Python, here are the prompts they use) against the SWE-bench dataset of coding problems - 2,294 real-world examples pulled from 12 open source repos: django/django (850), sympy/sympy (386), scikit-learn/scikit-learn (229), sphinx-doc/sphinx (187), matplotlib/matplotlib (184), pytest-dev/pytest (119), pydata/xarray (110), astropy/astropy (95), pylint-dev/pylint (57), psf/requests (44), mwaskom/seaborn (22), pallets/flask (11).
Correction: The Bash only benchmark runs against SWE-bench Verified, not original SWE-bench. Verified is a manually curated subset of 500 samples described here, funded by OpenAI. Here's SWE-bench Verified on Hugging Face - since it's just 2.1MB of Parquet it's easy to browse using Datasette Lite, which cuts those numbers down to django/django (231), sympy/sympy (75), sphinx-doc/sphinx (44), matplotlib/matplotlib (34), scikit-learn/scikit-learn (32), astropy/astropy (22), pydata/xarray (22), pytest-dev/pytest (19), pylint-dev/pylint (10), psf/requests (8), mwaskom/seaborn (2), pallets/flask (1).
Here's how the top ten models performed:
It's interesting to see Claude Opus 4.5 beat Opus 4.6, though only by about a percentage point. 4.5 Opus is top, then Gemini 3 Flash, then MiniMax M2.5 - a 229B model released last week by Chinese lab MiniMax. GLM-5, Kimi K2.5 and DeepSeek V3.2 are three more Chinese models that make the top ten as well.
OpenAI's GPT-5.2 is their highest performing model at position 6, but it's worth noting that their best coding model, GPT-5.3-Codex, is not represented - maybe because it's not yet available in the OpenAI API.
This benchmark uses the same system prompt for every model, which is important for a fair comparison but does mean that the quality of the different harnesses or optimized prompts is not being measured here.
The chart above is a screenshot from the SWE-bench website, but their charts don't include the actual percentage values visible on the bars. I successfully used Claude for Chrome to add these - transcript here. My prompt sequence included:
Use claude in chrome to open https://www.swebench.com/
Click on "Compare results" and then select "Select top 10"
See those bar charts? I want them to display the percentage on each bar so I can take a better screenshot, modify the page like that
I'm impressed at how well this worked - Claude injected custom JavaScript into the page to draw additional labels on top of the existing chart.
![Screenshot of a Claude AI conversation showing browser automation. A thinking step reads "Pivoted strategy to avoid recursion issues with chart labeling >" followed by the message "Good, the chart is back. Now let me carefully add the labels using an inline plugin on the chart instance to avoid the recursion issue." A collapsed "Browser_evaluate" section shows a browser_evaluate tool call with JavaScript code using Chart.js canvas context to draw percentage labels on bars: meta.data.forEach((bar, index) => { const value = dataset.data[index]; if (value !== undefined && value !== null) { ctx.save(); ctx.textAlign = 'center'; ctx.textBaseline = 'bottom'; ctx.fillStyle = '#333'; ctx.font = 'bold 12px sans-serif'; ctx.fillText(value.toFixed(1) + '%', bar.x, bar.y - 5); A pending step reads "Let me take a screenshot to see if it worked." followed by a completed "Done" step, and the message "Let me take a screenshot to check the result."](https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/claude-chrome-draw-on-chart.jpg)
Update: If you look at the transcript Claude claims to have switched to Playwright, which is confusing because I didn't think I had that configured.
The A.I. Disruption We’ve Been Waiting for Has Arrived. New opinion piece from Paul Ford in the New York Times. Unsurprisingly for a piece by Paul it's packed with quoteworthy snippets, but a few stood out for me in particular.
Paul describes the November moment that so many other programmers have observed, and highlights Claude Code's ability to revive old side projects:
[Claude Code] was always a helpful coding assistant, but in November it suddenly got much better, and ever since I’ve been knocking off side projects that had sat in folders for a decade or longer. It’s fun to see old ideas come to life, so I keep a steady flow. Maybe it adds up to a half-hour a day of my time, and an hour of Claude’s.
November was, for me and many others in tech, a great surprise. Before, A.I. coding tools were often useful, but halting and clumsy. Now, the bot can run for a full hour and make whole, designed websites and apps that may be flawed, but credible. I spent an entire session of therapy talking about it.
And as the former CEO of a respected consultancy firm (Postlight) he's well positioned to evaluate the potential impact:
When you watch a large language model slice through some horrible, expensive problem — like migrating data from an old platform to a modern one — you feel the earth shifting. I was the chief executive of a software services firm, which made me a professional software cost estimator. When I rebooted my messy personal website a few weeks ago, I realized: I would have paid $25,000 for someone else to do this. When a friend asked me to convert a large, thorny data set, I downloaded it, cleaned it up and made it pretty and easy to explore. In the past I would have charged $350,000.
That last price is full 2021 retail — it implies a product manager, a designer, two engineers (one senior) and four to six months of design, coding and testing. Plus maintenance. Bespoke software is joltingly expensive. Today, though, when the stars align and my prompts work out, I can do hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work for fun (fun for me) over weekends and evenings, for the price of the Claude $200-a-month plan.
He also neatly captures the inherent community tension involved in exploring this technology:
All of the people I love hate this stuff, and all the people I hate love it. And yet, likely because of the same personality flaws that drew me to technology in the first place, I am annoyingly excited.
But the intellectually interesting part for me is something else. I now have something close to a magic box where I throw in a question and a first answer comes back basically for free, in terms of human effort. Before this, the way I'd explore a new idea is to either clumsily put something together myself or ask a student to run something short for signal, and if it's there, we’d go deeper. That quick signal step, i.e., finding out if a question has any meat to it, is what I can now do without taking up anyone else's time. It’s now between just me, Claude Code, and a few days of GPU time.
I don’t know what this means for how we do research long term. I don’t think anyone does yet. But the distance between a question and a first answer just got very small.
— Dimitris Papailiopoulos, on running research questions though Claude Code
Two new Showboat tools: Chartroom and datasette-showboat
I introduced Showboat a week ago—my CLI tool that helps coding agents create Markdown documents that demonstrate the code that they have created. I’ve been finding new ways to use it on a daily basis, and I’ve just released two new tools to help get the best out of the Showboat pattern. Chartroom is a CLI charting tool that works well with Showboat, and datasette-showboat lets Showboat’s new remote publishing feature incrementally push documents to a Datasette instance.
[... 1,756 words]I'm a very heavy user of Claude Code on the web, Anthropic's excellent but poorly named cloud version of Claude Code where everything runs in a container environment managed by them, greatly reducing the risk of anything bad happening to a computer I care about.
I don't use the web interface at all (hence my dislike of the name) - I access it exclusively through their native iPhone and Mac desktop apps.
Something I particularly appreciate about the desktop app is that it lets you see images that Claude is "viewing" via its Read /path/to/image tool. Here's what that looks like:
This means you can get a visual preview of what it's working on while it's working, without waiting for it to push code to GitHub for you to try out yourself later on.
The prompt I used to trigger the above screenshot was:
Run "uvx rodney --help" and then use Rodney to manually test the new pages and menu - look at screenshots from it and check you think they look OK
I designed Rodney to have --help output that provides everything a coding agent needs to know in order to use the tool.
The Claude iPhone app doesn't display opened images yet, so I requested it as a feature just now in a thread on Twitter.
The AI Vampire (via) Steve Yegge's take on agent fatigue, and its relationship to burnout.
Let's pretend you're the only person at your company using AI.
In Scenario A, you decide you're going to impress your employer, and work for 8 hours a day at 10x productivity. You knock it out of the park and make everyone else look terrible by comparison.
In that scenario, your employer captures 100% of the value from you adopting AI. You get nothing, or at any rate, it ain't gonna be 9x your salary. And everyone hates you now.
And you're exhausted. You're tired, Boss. You got nothing for it.
Congrats, you were just drained by a company. I've been drained to the point of burnout several times in my career, even at Google once or twice. But now with AI, it's oh, so much easier.
Steve reports needing more sleep due to the cognitive burden involved in agentic engineering, and notes that four hours of agent work a day is a more realistic pace:
I’ve argued that AI has turned us all into Jeff Bezos, by automating the easy work, and leaving us with all the difficult decisions, summaries, and problem-solving. I find that I am only really comfortable working at that pace for short bursts of a few hours once or occasionally twice a day, even with lots of practice.
Deep Blue
We coined a new term on the Oxide and Friends podcast last month (primary credit to Adam Leventhal) covering the sense of psychological ennui leading into existential dread that many software developers are feeling thanks to the encroachment of generative AI into their field of work.
[... 971 words]Someone has to prompt the Claudes, talk to customers, coordinate with other teams, decide what to build next. Engineering is changing and great engineers are more important than ever.
— Boris Cherny, Claude Code creator, on why Anthropic are still hiring developers
Claude Code was made available to the general public in May 2025. Today, Claude Code’s run-rate revenue has grown to over $2.5 billion; this figure has more than doubled since the beginning of 2026. The number of weekly active Claude Code users has also doubled since January 1 [six weeks ago].
— Anthropic, announcing their $30 billion series G
Introducing Showboat and Rodney, so agents can demo what they’ve built
A key challenge working with coding agents is having them both test what they’ve built and demonstrate that software to you, their supervisor. This goes beyond automated tests—we need artifacts that show their progress and help us see exactly what the agent-produced software is able to do. I’ve just released two new tools aimed at this problem: Showboat and Rodney.
[... 2,023 words]I am having more fun programming than I ever have, because so many more of the programs I wish I could find the time to write actually exist. I wish I could share this joy with the people who are fearful about the changes agents are bringing. The fear itself I understand, I have fear more broadly about what the end-game is for intelligence on tap in our society. But in the limited domain of writing computer programs these tools have brought so much exploration and joy to my work.
— David Crawshaw, Eight more months of agents
How StrongDM’s AI team build serious software without even looking at the code
Last week I hinted at a demo I had seen from a team implementing what Dan Shapiro called the Dark Factory level of AI adoption, where no human even looks at the code the coding agents are producing. That team was part of StrongDM, and they’ve just shared the first public description of how they are working in Software Factories and the Agentic Moment:
[... 1,664 words]I don't know why this week became the tipping point, but nearly every software engineer I've talked to is experiencing some degree of mental health crisis.
[...] Many people assuming I meant job loss anxiety but that's just one presentation. I'm seeing near-manic episodes triggered by watching software shift from scarce to abundant. Compulsive behaviors around agent usage. Dissociative awe at the temporal compression of change. It's not fear necessarily just the cognitive overload from living in an inflection point.
— Tom Dale
Running Pydantic’s Monty Rust sandboxed Python subset in WebAssembly
There’s a jargon-filled headline for you! Everyone’s building sandboxes for running untrusted code right now, and Pydantic’s latest attempt, Monty, provides a custom Python-like language (a subset of Python) in Rust and makes it available as both a Rust library and a Python package. I got it working in WebAssembly, providing a sandbox-in-a-sandbox.
[... 854 words]When I want to quickly implement a one-off experiment in a part of the codebase I am unfamiliar with, I get codex to do extensive due diligence. Codex explores relevant slack channels, reads related discussions, fetches experimental branches from those discussions, and cherry picks useful changes for my experiment. All of this gets summarized in an extensive set of notes, with links back to where each piece of information was found. Using these notes, codex wires the experiment and makes a bunch of hyperparameter decisions I couldn’t possibly make without much more effort.
— Karel D'Oosterlinck, I spent $10,000 to automate my research at OpenAI with Codex
Mitchell Hashimoto: My AI Adoption Journey (via) Some really good and unconventional tips in here for getting to a place with coding agents where they demonstrably improve your workflow and productivity. I particularly liked:
-
Reproduce your own work - when learning to use coding agents Mitchell went through a period of doing the work manually, then recreating the same solution using agents as an exercise:
I literally did the work twice. I'd do the work manually, and then I'd fight an agent to produce identical results in terms of quality and function (without it being able to see my manual solution, of course).
-
End-of-day agents - letting agents step in when your energy runs out:
To try to find some efficiency, I next started up a new pattern: block out the last 30 minutes of every day to kick off one or more agents. My hypothesis was that perhaps I could gain some efficiency if the agent can make some positive progress in the times I can't work anyways.
-
Outsource the Slam Dunks - once you know an agent can likely handle a task, have it do that task while you work on something more interesting yourself.