rakyll

> Disclaimer: I'm one of the co-creators of this project and working on Kubernetes so my opinions may be biased.

We met quite a large number of customers in the last few months, and several teams inside Google, who are asking for a stack that runs on any cluster.

There are several reasons for a layer like this.

(a) Today, it's extremely hard to deliver large agentic applications to someone else's compute, and it kills adoption for products that need to run closer on customer data plane, e.g. large scale code scanning product.

(b) It's tedious to build systems that set up the environment, deal with networking policies, provide integrations for session storage, memory curation, skills retrieval and mounting, etc while all you want to do is to focus on building applications.

(c) People want a truly transparent stack for compliance/auditing, and all other non functional capabilities most people don't usually think about until they have to.

We are mentioning Agent Substrate. Agent Substrate is working on Kubernetes but isn't exclusive to Kubernetes.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the co-creators of this project.

AX is a layer that is closer to job orchestration, Agent Substrate. It's NOT an agentic framework. We use Antigravity for a few generative features but are abstracting away some of these components so anyone can bring their own. AX is trying to solve some tedious things everyone has to deal with. Layering execution with the underlying stateful worker, wiring up the network correctly, providing sub "task" identity, provisioning the right environment, proving stateful branching, auto discovery.

We want to keep Agent Substrate free of generative features and still need a layer above for some integrations that require agentic concepts and identity.

Google compute services are under GCP and I work on Kubernetes. So the comparison with Gemini CLI is not relevant here.

LLVM is a future consideration for Go. One of the main reasons I don't want to tackle (1) right now if the possibility of benefiting from XRay even though it doesn't sort the case out for the vast majority: the gc users.

Whoops, fixed the typo. Thanks!

Avoiding error checking against a properly formatted constant is not avoiding error checking. I cannot follow your argument.