Christ follower | Engineer | Automator 7+ yrs building software. Apps, agents & automations with Codex + Hermes. Helping builders use agents to ship more.
U.S.A.
Joined October 2021
- Tweets14.7K
- Following2.7K
- Followers3.7K
- Likes37.8K
"We could automate that" is becoming a pretty easy sentence to say.
Figuring out whether it's worth doing, and getting the person who owns the problem to agree, can take a little longer.
Keeping the history matters for audits too. I'd add a short reason field on the superseded entry, so the next agent knows why it died as well as that it did.
Then the answer needs a pointer to the question it resolves, like an answers_question_id field. Without it, open versus resolved is something every next agent has to guess.
Last error plus a short list of the tool calls it made, in order. The whole run is too much to read at 7am. I keep the full log linked from the lock in case the summary isn't enough.
Every new model comes with another round of “you need to learn this.”
How much of the week are we supposed to spend catching up?
There’s a lot we could already build for someone if we spent some time finding them.
Has Claude been better with token usage? At least better than Codex? I don’t think Google is good enough yet. I’ve been looking at it too.
Until the agent edits the test to make it pass. Then you need a rule about who's allowed to touch the tests.
Worth asking since an owner who can close past an open question brings back the silent winner problem. I'd want unanswered questions to block closing, or at least force the owner to write a reason for overriding them.
Per-task scoping covers most of it. The gap is a long task where an early rejection goes stale halfway through. A superseded flag with a pointer to the newer entry would let the next agent skip the dead one.
Worth checking what the next agent actually reads. If open questions only live in the task history, a closed task buries them. I'd at least stamp them with the close event so they show up as unanswered at handoff.