BUILDERZ

🇦🇪📢LIVE from @hackerhouses Dubai: BUILDERZ 2.0 HAS NOW SHIPPED. Check out our fresh new website & look. 👀

A model, tools, and an interface do not define the contract around an agent run. Before an agent changes a repository, the system should decide: 1. where the command may execute 2. which risk tier applies 3. whether a human must approve it 4. what evidence must be retained 5. how the change will be recovered if it fails That is the layer LACP adds around Claude, Codex, Hermes, and other CLI agents. The host still owns the model, tools, session, and interface. LACP governs routing, risk, approvals, evidence, and recovery. An agent run should not become a reconstruction exercise after something breaks. Bookmark these five checks. Follow @nykdotdev for practical agent infrastructure.

I'm not a filmmaker. I wanted to try my luck, play around with FLUX 3, and see if I could turn a broken pipe into a tiny story. The hard part wasn't generating a pretty shot. It was making the cause and effect readable: one collar breaks, the same collar returns, one turn closes the gap, and the pressure stops only after the seal holds. That took more iteration than I expected. This is THE LAST SKILL, made with FLUX 3 Preview through Hermes Agent. @NousResearch @bfl_ai

Shipped a paper copy-watch reference for @rpcedge: doctor → logsSubscribe one wallet → paper log only no auto-trade · not a strategy · MIT git clone + pnpm start github.com/rpc-edge/rpced… workload: rpcedge.com/for/copy-tradi…

Mission Control is at 5,891 stars on GitHub. Self-hosted control plane for AI agents: dispatch tasks, review runs, track spend, and operate OpenClaw, Claude Code, Codex, and other runtimes. The pattern it encodes: an agent action writes what changed, who changed it, and whether it was allowed, before the change lands. My system runs that in production; this repo is the open-source template of the same architecture, at 1,518 tests and 151 API routes.

If you want first traffic after `npx rpcedge doctor`: github.com/rpc-edge/rpced… paper only - prove key, watch one wallet, log events. Not a strategy.

I put Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok and Hermes into one quota dashboard. Not to rank models. To answer the operational question every CLI hides differently: which ready tool has current capacity evidence for the next job? The dashboard keeps auth, usage windows, reset timing, routes and missing evidence separate.

Your coding agent says "done." That is a claim, not a receipt. Mission Control now enforces: > Done without approval: HTTP 403 > External tests: 3 of 3 pass > Approved review: task advances The worker should not be the final reviewer. Bookmark this. Follow @nykdotdev

If your coding agent is still guessing Solana RPC wiring: claude mcp add rpcedge -- npx rpcedge-mcp@latest tools: doctor · health · fees · leaders · relay submit keys stay in env - never in the prompt rpcedge.com/toolkit

If you are implementing this, Council Of High Intelligence is the relevant open-source starting point: structured multi-perspective deliberation across Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, and OpenCode. github.com/0xNyk/council-…

Looking for active Solana trenchers, algo traders, and snipers - dm me

An agent shouldn't need an open browser session to research X. xint gives it a scoped surface: official API search, watch loops, structured exports, a capabilities manifest, and MCP. Drop it into .claude/skills. Cache and reports stay local; OAuth actions stay opt-in.

A CODING AGENT SAYING "DONE" IS NOT A RECOVERY PLAN. The useful loop is: 1. Execute under local policy. 2. Capture logs and artifacts. 3. Verify tests and policy. 4. Promote only if evidence passes. 5. Roll back to a known state when it fails. 6. Retain the approved signal, not every output. That is the contract LACP puts around Claude, Codex, Hermes, and other CLI agents. It does not replace the runtime or prove the code is correct. It gives the host a deterministic action, evidence, and recovery path. I ran the public route-policy, auto-rollback, and browser-evidence tests in an isolated home. All three passed. The operator rule: proof changes what runs next. Bookmark this. Follow @nykdotdev

A-Team summoned.

Got a problem?! Solana can help! See you this Thursday at 2 PM UTC on @EcosystemCall!

MORE AGENTS DO NOT MAKE A DECISION MORE RELIABLE. A useful council needs five things: 1. independent first passes 2. explicit disagreement 3. evidence per view 4. one synthesis 5. a stop rule That is the loop behind Council of High Intelligence: 18 specialist perspectives across multiple LLM providers, ending in one reviewable output. Bookmark this. Follow @nykdotdev

Buzz can bridge ACP agents. The hard part is operating one without hiding the trust boundary. I open-sourced hermes-buzz: a starter kit for running Hermes as a Buzz community agent through two paths: 1. Desktop Hermes ACP inside Buzz Desktop. 2. Headless buzz-acp with hermes-acp on a laptop or VPS. The repo includes: - guided onboarding - read-only doctor checks - owner-only trigger defaults - prompt templates - per-channel filters - systemd and launchd examples - security and team handoff checklists It does not vendor Hermes or Buzz, and it is not a hosted service. It packages the boundary between them so operators can inspect it before giving an agent a channel and a shell. Bookmark this. Follow @nykdotdev