We used to have a time where every small business had its own custom accounting software, and discovered that these businesses aren’t actually special snowflakes and are better off just using the generic software and conforming to whatever it does
I found that most things that are “features” in harnesses and tools that don’t relate to UI and UX in those harnesses themselves can be done through skills or just prompts.
A nice features of Claude’s is the remote control through the mobile app. That isn’t just a skill.
Curious why your first impulse is not simply to point your favorite agent at a few examples and start brainstorming/planning from there?
Multiple times I’ve built a purpose specific bespoke tool starting this way. In fact, it’s a great way to learn how specialized tools are built.
This preliminary change in cost may not make it worth it for people depending on which is their "favorite agent". Especially as the default harnesses for said agents continue to improve...
No, only Anthropic has that policy (and I think even that is relaxed for an unknown period if you use the Claude Agent SDK: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15036540-use-the-clau...).
OpenAI, Kimi, Qwen, GLM and Deepseek all allow it.
I'm not sure about Gemini.
The opposite, how easy it is nowadays should be clarified. Codex's app-server quite literally is built to be integrated with, authentication is a breeze and it's quite stable, compared to the TUIs that are around.
It's a real shame Codex is moving in the direction of hiding stuff on local disks from users, hopefully they're revert the decision of encrypting the agent>sub-agent prompts so we get back introspection again...
The alternative of that first impulse should be what exactly? Telling AI to research Medium AI drivel articles (since nobody seems to be posting long/medium form content anywhere else these days) to figure out what’s the best approach to building an AI harness?
BTW just my personal observation but I generally find AI notoriously bad at building any AI applications compared to standard software (which is not surprising given the scarcity of high quality training data)
And you add a small twist, that instead of a 1-to-1 back and forth, you instead put it into a loop, where the LLM reply can itself "have a turn", e.g. a tool invocation, where your system is the one that replies (e.g. with the tool invocation's result). That's pretty much it, you have a 1 to potentially many "chat".
The harder part is getting all the "soft" parts right, like how to have well-behaving tool calls, timeouts, prevent huge cycles eating up tokens, but there are no one way to solve these, it's a fundamentally heuristic-heavy area.
https://github.com/99991/MinimalAgent
You only need a single tool to start with. All recent LLMs know how to use bash for reading/writing/editing/executing.
For example, the mobile/remote control feature I find very useful but not sure it would be worth cloning. If you aren’t replicating every feature you aren’t exactly “cloning” it, you’ll just end up with a crappier version with a fraction of the features of the real thing.