0x1062

I believe that may be the point as in the description the author says it’s “the book I wish I had earlier in life”.

Thanks for your feedback.

The 'main' section is HTML, so it can be any type of workspace you want. Our agent can read/write (with permissions, of course) and can execute code locally (again, with permissions).

The HTML pages we generate are backed by a schema and state per 'workspace', so they persist, can be shared between team members, and aren't just ephemeral read-only artifacts.

Our agent can do work on your machine for you, it has an integrated web browser that allows it to not only search and retrieve info but also perform web-based tasks, and it can package everything up into a nice little contained UI for you so you're not jumping between multiple apps / documents / tabs. That UI is tied back to whatever document / page you were working in -- so for instance our app can have a form that updates a web page, or updates a document on disk and vice versa.

The plainness is deliberate, the design of the workspaces is up to you -- it's your UI not mine and the agent will design everything how you like it. And as far as the sidebar/text input combination goes I can assure you I have spent a lot of time imagining what this UX should look like and frankly this combo just makes sense.

Also a note on the text input / agent. When you move from text conversations to dynamic HTML interfaces you're faced with a question: how do you relate 'conversations' with the agent to workspaces? A one-to-one conversation to workspace mapping? Many-to-one, one-to-many? Should conversations be time-based, where I just start a new one and have to provide context again and can optionally link back to old conversations if I want? This question is actually quite difficult, but my belief was that ultimately you want just one single global conversation with the agent, and you want to let it handle its own memory internally. We basically just treat memory like a codebase and let the agent decide what to do. This means when you type in the text input you can refer to anything you like: any workspace, any conversation, any webpage you're currently browsing, any folder on disk -- the agent gets the right context and can retrieve relevant details as it needs. And it works!

So sure, I'm not a designer no matter how hard I try -- there will be far better UX out there than I've designed. But I think the fundamental mechanism in Radix is more sophisticated than most other tools, including Cowork etc (no shade at all to anyone, I'm a massive fan of Claude Code).

Yes sorry I may need to change that.

(It's not part of the free version since that works with your existing agent and you interact with it however you normally would).

The message stack in the bottom are the agent replies as it works. The idea is to move away from an array of messages as the primary interface with an agent and instead make the tools the primary interface. Whether that's actually helpful is an open question but it's certainly how I prefer to work now that I've been building with it.

Haha no sadly not, the name was chosen purely because I like the sound of it.

It's an example of an algorithm that can be complex to read in code, but is more approachable when viewed as a diagram -- a perfect case for a tool like this.

Also thank you for your feedback and taking the time to view the landing page at least!

Nope, this is an entirely separate product and I have no affiliation with the people who worked on Radix UI, or with WorkOS.

Using agents to write code

Until they drive off while still looking at it, like the woman who drove through a pedestrian crossing a couple of weeks ago and almost hit me while I was walking across.

I once had a jumping spider on top of my computer monitor and it would chase the cursor around as I moved the mouse. I have a video that I should post online somewhere

AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.