> description: Anti-slop frontend skill for landing pages, portfolios, and redesigns. The agent reads the brief, infers the right design direction, and ships interfaces that do not look templated. Real design systems when applicable, audit-first on redesigns, strict pre-flight check.
> - *PREMIUM-CONSUMER PALETTE BAN (mandatory, second-most-recurring AI-tell):* - For premium-consumer briefs (cookware, wellness, artisan, luxury, heritage craft, DTC home goods, etc.)... - Backgrounds: `#f5f1ea`, `#f7f5f1`...
> Landing pages and portfolios are *visual products*. Text-only pages with fake-screenshot divs are slop.
https://github.com/yc-software/qm/blob/7f2c916360f1797a8ff2a...
I guess the em dash is really dead.
My slop control skill is a thousand tokens. Biggest problem I see with the skill is that everything is prompted via negativa. smh. sorry to be judgmental but it's hard to trust a harness that comes shipped with a skill like this.
Which, in my opinion, feels like slop.
Posers took over the industry.
You can’t prompt an agent to have taste.
The hardest problem in multiplayer agents, at least for us, has not been the agent loop. It is scoping and QM's per-person scopes plus shared rooms is a sane answer for a company-wide assistant.
I build in the adjacent lane, AQ (aq.dev), a multiplayer coding harness where teams run Claude Code and Codex together), so seeing YC ship "a multiplayer agent harness for work" is validating and a little surreal.
Also, what are power uses really using openclaw like systems for?
- automatically fixing simple CI failures
- getting production alerts and automatically creating RCAs and a fix PR
- periodically checking slow DB queries and finding ways to speed them up.
- creating charts to answer one-off questions about our data
I've tried using it as an on-the-go coding agent as well, but found I prefer more interactive agents, so I can see what the code looks like.
I have one reading my second tier RSS feeds and newsletters and giving me news/market updates filtered for things important to me
Yesterday I just decided to try writing my own version (100% just for me, not open source, no monetization plan, incredibly custom) and I've been enjoying working on it so far (I know, I know, it's been a day, honeymoon period and all that).
Part of it is I like building software (even if I'm not writing every line) and part is I like having full control. Turns out (and many people have said this) the basic agent loop really isn't all that special. There are a million levers to pull and what not outside the base loop but that the fun part for me. Trying out different ways to add on to the core concept.
I'm really enjoying being untethered for things like "how will I monetize?" or "how do I make this generic so others can use it?". If I need functionality I just add it in, I don't need to make it infinitely pluggable, etc.
All that said, I'm thankful to things like nanoclaw and then Hermes for exposing me to the core ideas. I just want to put my own spin on it.
I've become attached to Orca (yc-backed) for managing coding sessions in the past week, but some sort of postgres session db is what's really lacking. So, maybe it's time to try qm.
Both seem to provide a unified interface across different harnesses/models. HarnessRouter exposes that as a developer API for embedding agent-powered features into products, with Task / Run / Session / Streaming / File / Artifact / Renderer contracts, plus tracing around harness/model behavior over time.
Is the main distinction that QM is a company workspace, while HarnessRouter is an embeddable harness layer for product teams and enterprises?
Making agents multiplayer is mostly a context problem. You could be using ChatGPT or a Slack bot, or a web interface and the agent needs to know you, your conversations in Cowork etc. so it can enable multi channel collaboration with your agents and your colleagues. We're working on it at https://lobu.ai
Interesting approach to open source contributions. Closer to feature requests at that point?
It's getting ridiculous the amount of unsupervised agents doing active inbox management on things that should be personal relationship work. I'm so tired of it.
Would be cool if in a few epic tickets i'll have both their org wide architecture AND a productive individual coding interface :)
https://github.com/garrytan/gstack
Use Garry Tan's exact Claude Code setup: 23 opinionated tools that serve as CEO, Designer, Eng Manager, Release Manager, Doc Engineer, and QA
But feels like its written to run on one mac/vm and carries same drawbacks of other similar platforms. I'd rather use Hermes/Openclaw for oss or closed managed agents like Tasklet or Prajvis
Oh grand. The world will be full of agents talking to agents and nothing getting done. So pretty much the same only I can just leave my machine awake to look busy.
"Given that coding agents write most underlying code now, we'd prefer PRs in the form of human-written text. [...] Please do not have AI artificially expand what you'd like to do into a formal proposal."
This software appears to be yet another solution in search of a problem designed to burn as many tokens as possible.
Starting to think people were right when they talked about our industry itself having an AI psychosis problem.
And then like 90% of the time there's nobody "there", and it's barely even collaborative.
If this is "multiplayer", does that make Chrome a Massively Multiplayer Online Browser?
Is everything a game?