upvote
I agree with you

don't think the "agent" abstraction is stable enough to standardize the behavior/runtime layer yet.

thing I'm trying to test is smaller: is that possible to standardize the outer contract around agents?

what inputs does it accept? what outputs does it promise? what model does it use? what prompt/template does it depend on? what tools can it call? what target should it be built or applied to?

so here it is intentionally not trying to describe the full control loop or become a runtime. it's more like a source-of-truth layer for the parts that are already showing up everywhere, even if the runtime patterns keep changing underneath.

I might be wrong, but my bet is that the runtime layer will keep changing, while the need for reviewable/diffable agent contracts will not.

reply
You mean Claude…
reply
Claude is a model, an agent is more like the full solution. Some would call Claude Code itself an agent. Agents do things, models are just models until you use them.
reply
What are you going on about? I was saying that they didn’t write any code it was all Claude. Obviously using Claude code.
reply
The post you replied about is regarding people not knowing what "agent" means, but you also wrote very little, so its hard to gauge what your angle was. Not sure why it was downvoted.
reply