upvote
Is this amalgamation working on a single project? What harnesses do you use? How are you using mercury 3? How much and what kind of work are you sending to deepseek?
reply
Can't work on a single project, Amdahl's law gets you then. Try to work on as many different unrelated projects as possible, so I can get maximum throughput.

I break work up into four loose tiers:

1. flash - deepseek flash 4.1 / luna / haiku

2. pro - mercury 3 / terra / sonnet

3. heavy - opus 5.5 / sol

4. frontier - fable 5.1 / astra / argon

The decision of how to classify each piece of work is done by the coordinator (typically Opus 5.5...). If a card fails at a particular tier, it's going to get escalated up tiers until it gets sorted.

Each card has multiple readers (code review). I find mercury is very good at reading quickly. Deepseek as well. I will be honest, I think for 99% of stuff I need to do Opus 5.5 @ medium is ideal. I just use the additional models for different points of view, especially the absolute frontier models fable, astra, argon at max effort for security audits and code review.

reply
What kind of "things" are you making? I can't process this much information, so I would inevitable be outsourcing most decision making. That could be fine for some products, but not for mine, where data model and RBAC model (among others) all require alignment between multiple stakeholders.

I have one agent and already find it quite intense to outsource code writing and basically just make and document decisions.

I feel like I could be rich working like you, I also feel like it is impossible for me to meet the needs of my clients if I'd work like this (so I can't be rich, it's a paradox). I wouldn't be able to answer their questions (without the active agent on-call, context window fully loaded), I wouldn't be able to explain just where the data model needs changing, or why some role really can't exist they way they envision etc, etc, etc.

I could of course branch the whole project and basically discuss multiple implementations during stakeholder meetings, but then still I'd need to explain the advantages/disadvantage of choosing one system over the other and guide them through it.

reply
The sort of work I pass through this system, it's mostly library work for multiplayer games.

For example, my work on schema, my protobufs/flatbuffers language replacement for multiplayer games, parallelizes very nicely across 15 languages on the sprint system. https://github.com/mas-bandwidth/schema.

See roadmap here: https://github.com/mas-bandwidth/schema/blob/main/ROADMAP.md

Very difficult to coordinate this amount of work in || without some sort of structured work system.

Even more AI coding work here if you are curious: https://patreon.com/masbandwidth

reply
Interesting. Are you also targeting WebTransport for both reliable and unreliable transport?
reply
Thank you. Moo looks really cool.

I did some prototype games, one thing that worked really well for me was having a deterministic replay system where the agents could drive the gamestate via recorded inputs. Kept me from having to do any playtesting or debugging in the main agentic loop.

reply
You'll like this too then

https://github.com/mas-bandwidth/fixed3d -- port of box3d to fixed point :)

https://github.com/mas-bandwidth/fixed -- fixed point math library

reply
Cool! I’d forgotten until now, but I had that exact idea back in the stone age, 10 or 15 years ago, and started working on it but got bogged down. It was clearly feasible but a huge amount of work, too much to justify the cost. So it’s a perfect job for coding agents now. Nice one!

I do you think now need to watch out for the opposite problem. These things become so easy to build that the temptation is just to go ahead and build. But unless you really do need them, all that new code just goes to waste. The cost to produce has become very low, but sometimes the value can end up being negative.

reply
Live view of sprint system as I work tonight: http://37.27.135.206
reply