lawrjone

I enjoyed this being your final post before you left. Quite the swan song.

Posting this on behalf of my colleague (sadly ex as of yesterday, this was his swan song) Rory and team who did a bunch of really interesting digging into why Postgres was struggling with our queues.

I'd dealt with multixact about a decade ago when I had to dig into the Postgres source to figure out how they worked, they're quite a hidden/undocumented (or at least were back then) part of the system.

Glad he spent the time writing this up.

I don’t understand how you’ve reasoned your way here.

How could Jev have possibly built something out of reach of a frontier lab providing the same or 5x as much resourcing to one of their teams to achieve? Which they can do because Jev has only received $40M of funding recently, so a round that is approximately what OpenAI is spending per math problem they try cracking.

In addition to that, these frontier labs have got extremely good at generating synthetic data and running generalised training pipelines. I can only imagine how easy it would be for them to build this internally vs Jev building it from scratch.

And then the final thing: one of the best places you might apply Jev is within a harness, behind layers that customers increasingly have abstracted from them. Frontier labs have huge incentives to do this as it could make their offering much better and cheaper. And whoever gets this first wins another big attraction for users.

My take on this is Jev is either acquired almost immediately for the benefit of the next 1-3 months head start for whichever lab acquires them or we get a similar model offered from all labs in 3-6 months or sooner.

Author here! Wrote this for engineers who are using these tools but want a deeper understanding of how they work.

It’s a write up of what I’ve learned from building support for skills and MCPs into our agent harness, so comes from very practical experience.

Generally just very useful to have it clickable or copyable from the commit is the thing?

Along with models being much better and more direct to follow something if it’s there. An agent will always read commits to look at a change, force it to look at commits and check another index just in case it exists is slower and pays more tokens, now you can just grab it.

But also mostly because who would actually care about this. It’s a sentence on the end of a git commit, in what way does this annoy people other than their prior feelings about AI tech.

It’s not meant for saying “this change was done by Claude” it’s meant to connect commits back to the session. Makes it way easier to jump back into a follow up change between sessions as the agent can reload parts of the context.

Anyone thinking this is about tagging AI generated changes and not just making the experience in Claude better is missing the point of the feature.

It’s really useful for helping agents navigate history and maintain continuity between sessions. So wouldn’t assume it’s for marketing, it has a lot of utility.

As a Claude user this is just a benefit to me. Means I can grab the session and resume if I ever see a commit I want to jump back into, and Claude can read these sessions itself whenever I reference the commit, which helps a bunch.

It might come with advertising benefits for them but expect it’s mostly just because it helps their tools work and that benefits everyone.

Am I misunderstanding this change? This makes it sound like Claude is attaching the entire session content when I thought it was only a link that is exclusively readable by the author, unless deliberately shared?

Fwiw to acquire a banking license and get the relevant approvals I believe you need to prove a redundancy plan that goes beyond just scaling.

I used to work in fintech where we’d face the same requirements and know a bunch of folks from Monzo. You can fight the status quo only for so long until it becomes much easier to just do what you’re being asked and produce a totally separate service that solidly answers any audit you may face.

You’d use it because until recently Cursor had the best setup for cloud agents and visual verification and a bunch of other features outside of the harness.

They are deciding on the merits of the model right? They’re picking the model that’s supported in most tools.

I think maybe you’re suggesting private companies should be forced to support all models which is a position that isn’t technically feasible or one that most would agree is even a sensible ideal.

I work with Johanna (author) on the incident team. It’s been pretty cool watching this roll out, been particularly great that I’ve barely had to think about the replicas when working with the code.

The wiring to route to either replica or primary is very transparent. Seen this done several times before and it’s never been quite as easy to have your code just do the Right Thing.