The 56% conversation vs 21% coding split is a really interesting finding — it lines up with trajectory studies on SWE-bench where ~38% of an agent's actions are pure exploration (grep, find, file reads). The remaining…
[dead]
Bottom-up preparation :) - Plate — your product - Pancake 1 — the model - Syrup #1 — how the model emits the tool call (Harmony, JSON, XML-ish). Different flavor at every table. - Pancake 2 — the client/agent - Syrup #2…
I agree with the core of what you're saying, but I think the real split isn't "Anthropic trustworthy or not" — it's: what's proprietary vs what's open in the stuff you're actually building on. Routines, Projects,…
MCP is the wire format between agent and tool, not the format the model itself uses to emit the call. That part (Harmony, JSON, XML-ish) is still model-specific. So the M×N the article describes is really two problems…
The 56% conversation vs 21% coding split is a really interesting finding — it lines up with trajectory studies on SWE-bench where ~38% of an agent's actions are pure exploration (grep, find, file reads). The remaining…
[dead]
Bottom-up preparation :) - Plate — your product - Pancake 1 — the model - Syrup #1 — how the model emits the tool call (Harmony, JSON, XML-ish). Different flavor at every table. - Pancake 2 — the client/agent - Syrup #2…
I agree with the core of what you're saying, but I think the real split isn't "Anthropic trustworthy or not" — it's: what's proprietary vs what's open in the stuff you're actually building on. Routines, Projects,…
[dead]
MCP is the wire format between agent and tool, not the format the model itself uses to emit the call. That part (Harmony, JSON, XML-ish) is still model-specific. So the M×N the article describes is really two problems…