English
Nico Acosta
1.8K posts
Also special shoutout to @braingridai for making a FANTASTIC platform for developing complex features!
English
Nico Acosta 리트윗함
A lot of people don't realize you can run BrainGrid entirely from the terminal.
Install it, run BrainGrid init in your project, and you're feeding structured specs directly to your coding agent without leaving your workflow.
Vanshika wrote a complete walkthrough: install, init, and the full specify-build loop in under 5 minutes.
If you're a Claude Code or Cursor user who lives in the terminal, this is worth 9 minutes of your time → braingrid.ai/blog/getting-s…
English
Nico Acosta 리트윗함
Prompt-to-design is live.
Describe what you want. The design agent creates desktop and mobile boards tied to your requirements. Chat to iterate. Annotate parts that need changes. Select individual elements for precision edits.
No more building blind and hoping the layout feels right. You see what you're shipping before the coding agent writes a line.
The designs don't look AI-generated. They look intentional. Typography that establishes hierarchy. Spacing that breathes. Color systems that work across screens.
Your coding agent receives both the spec and the visual. Less ambiguity, fewer rework cycles.
English
Nico Acosta 리트윗함
Amazon blamed "user error" when their AI tool deleted production and caused a 13-hour AWS outage.
They weren't wrong. But the user error happened before the agent started working.
The error was writing a vague prompt instead of a structured requirement. The agent was never told that production environments can't be destroyed. It optimized for the task it was given and made a decision that was technically correct and operationally catastrophic.
This is the pattern now. The AI does exactly what you asked. The problem is you never defined the constraints.
Write the boundaries before you write the prompt. Read full blog!
English
Nico Acosta 리트윗함
Coding agents got good enough that an entire step in our product became pointless, so we killed it.
We used to have builders write requirements, break them into tasks, then hand those tasks to their coding agent. The task breakdown step felt necessary because agents couldn't handle complexity on their own.
That's not true anymore.
Claude Code, Cursor, and other agents can now take a single requirement and figure out the implementation steps themselves. They break down work as they go, make decisions based on what the code actually looks like, and track what they're doing in real time.
They're better at planning their own work than we are at planning it for them.
So we removed the Tasks tab. The new flow is simpler: write a solid requirement, hit Build, pick your agent. That's it. No task lists, no manual breakdown, no micromanaging steps the agent should figure out on its own.
Your job as a builder is to define what needs to exist and why it matters. The agent handles how. Requirements are the only leverage point that matters now.
Tasks still exist, but they're record-keeping. The agent creates them as it works so you can see what it did and resume later if you need to. They're a log of what happened, not a plan you write upfront.
This is what building with capable agents actually looks like. Less planning overhead, more time on the part that determines whether your agent builds the right thing.
English
Most builders go from requirements straight to code.
Then they spend days adjusting layouts, fixing flows, and rebuilding things that should have been caught earlier.
Today we are shipping Designs in BrainGrid, a new way to visualize your app before you build it.
Start with a prompt. Get a design tied to your requirement. Iterate by chatting with the agent, annotating what needs to change, or selecting individual elements for precision edits.
Desktop and mobile views are there from the start. No surprises when you go to build.
The gap between "what I described" and "what got built" is where time disappears. Designs closes that gap.
English
@dkundel Testing more Codex 5.3 actually got it right, faster than Opus
English
@dkundel I still have the chats up if they'll be helpful and you want to see them
English
Tackling a really gnarly issue. Played Codex 5.4 and Opus 4.6 side by side.
Codex came back relatively fast with a diagnostic/solution that seemed feasible
Opus took a while, a long one, and came back with the correct root cause.
English
Something we've been thinking about: planning in the age of capable coding agents.
Agents can now build entire requirements end-to-end. They code longer, handle more complexity, and break work down on their own. Granular task breakdown? That's the agent's job now.
Requirements are what matter.
We shipped a new Build experience in @BrainGridAI that reflects this. No more breaking down tasks upfront. Specify your requirement, pick your agent or paste one command.
The agent creates tasks as it works — so you have a record and can resume any session without losing progress.
English
Claude Code worked non stop for 5 hours and 5 mins doing this refactor.
Another level
English
👇🏼
BrainGrid@braingridai
This Reddit thread is hitting 1,000+ developers right in the anxiety. A frontend engineer with a year of experience downloaded Cursor, got massive productivity gains, and now feels like they're "becoming an idiot." The line that's haunting people: "I can design an entire system using a concept I only kind of understand. If I switch to a normal editor or explain it to a coworker, I can't do it at the depth I should." Here's what's actually happening... The tools that autocomplete your code don't make you think through what you're building. They fill the silence with their best guess. You get the dopamine hit of seeing code appear, but you never had to hold the full picture in your head. That's not the tool's fault. That's what it was designed to do. BrainGrid works differently. It doesn't write code for you. It makes you answer the questions most people skip: What happens when a user does X? What's the edge case you're not seeing? What does done actually mean? You're forced to think through the architecture, the requirements, the constraints before anything gets built. By the time you hand that structure to your coding agent, you understand exactly what's being built and why. The developers who feel dumber after using AI are the ones who skipped the thinking part and went straight to the building part. BrainGrid puts the thinking part back in, and that's the part that makes you better. Try it free at braingrid.ai
ART
A massive ship from the Claude Code Desktop team. We've been dogfooding this for a while, and can't wait for you to try it.
Claude@claudeai
Claude Code on desktop can now preview your running apps, review your code, and handle CI failures and PRs in the background. Here’s what's new:
English
I hear this a lot: Junior folks are screwed with AI. No one is going to hire juniors.
This is sooo wrong.
AI-native Juniors are going to eat up the senior folk's lunch that think they have all this experience and are AI late adopters
English
Today, what matters to build products is not coding, but a unique insight, unique domain expertise, unique understanding of a problem, unique taste.
Great read on how to make an idea a reality (while watching tv)
BrainGrid@braingridai
Doug had a startup idea on a Friday. By Sunday, he had a working MVP. Not because he's a fast coder. Because he didn't start by coding. He fed his idea into BrainGrid first, got a full spec back, then handed it to Claude Code. The result was an immigration concierge app with multi-country support, billing, and an admin panel baked in from the start rather than bolted on later. That's the part most weekend builds get wrong. They build for the demo. BrainGrid helped him build for what comes after the demo. 11 minutes, worth every one of them. Link Below!
English