myleshenderson

I have two claude code subscriptions: a team plan through my employer and I'm paying for the $200/month plan outside of that.

Trading $200/month of my money for the ability to build all of the things I've been thinking about for years is a great trade for me. I've built more things for fun/potential profit in the last year than I did in the previous decade combined.

And of course, one of the things I've built is a version of what OP made that works exactly how I want it to work. :)

I'm curious how others are thinking about productivity as you're adopting AI agents. We're starting to do some deep analysis of the output/logs from agent tooling to look for the new bottlenecks.

> An ongoing talent shortage requires more efficient use of engineers, and AI can help.

An ongoing desire to avoid paying engineers... FTFY

I appreciate the follow up. I'm using Jira as the primary work tracker for my day job, so I'm hesitant to interact with that any more than is necessary. Though we do have a skill for Jira primarily for humans to tell the LLM "hey create a ticket...".

I'll play with that a bit to see what happens.

Given the infancy of all of these tools, it makes sense to experiment. So trying out everything that is not gas town is reasonable.

I haven't yet tried gas town (or any of the mentioned tools) as I don't need so many agents that I need something like that plus the cost concerns. I've been rolling my own very light orchestrator (mostly just worktrees/branches/instructions) and relying on claude itself to manage the sub agents as necessary.

I was a bit surprised by the "ripping out beads" sentence from all of the article, as beads does seem to serve a purpose independent of the orchestration tools. Giving agents a ticketing system independent of what us humans use makes a lot of sense to me.

I've experimented with using Jira/Linear to handle the "current work todos" and using beads just seems so much better. No mcps and remote api calls is pretty great.

I'll be curious to see how the other orchestration tools are handling this, because it seems like they will have to handle it.

They’ve spent a bit of money this week. Wish they’d fix their tech!

I've been programming for 25 years and have owned the book for about 10 years. I just recently started to work through it and started with Dr. Racket.

There are things to love about Dr. Racket: hovering over a variable and visually seeing its connections to other places in the code is really cool. But ultimately I was a bit frustrated that it wasn't vs code.

So I stood up an configuration that let me use vs code (cursor actually) to work through the exercises. The LLM integration into cursor is cool as you can give it your code and whatever narrative you wrote and ask for feedback.

I am a tiny way through the exercises but having turned my code, the responses that I write, and the feedback that I get from the LLM into a static site.

It's been a fun way to spend a little time. For sure, I'm not getting the full benefit of working through SICP just with my own thoughts (without the aid of an LLM), but it's neat to see how you can integrate an LLM into the exercise.

I received a version of this list from a friend who joined as a VP in the Product organization at a previous job and have subsequently expanded on it. My reaction was "who the hell is this guy asking so many questions?", so if that's *your* reaction, I get it! Sharing this to get feedback from the community.