与「OSアップデート」という番組に出演させていただきます！☺️」相关的搜索结果

12/13 16:30〜YTVさんにて 「#OSアップデート」という番組に出演させていただきます！☺️# メッセンジャーの黒田さんを、見取り図さんとNMB48メンバーで流行スポットにお連れしました💗 アップデートしてるのかな？！ お楽しみに❤︎❤︎

今回ご紹介するのは【レクサス IS300h versionL】です。 ▶︎ LEXUSの人気モデルが、この度大幅アップデート！ほぼ新型とは言えないものの、OSを書き換えるなど走りが大きく変わりました。外観・内観が大きく変更され、グレードも刷新。LEXUSの人気セダンを、土屋圭市・相沢菜々子・工藤貴宏がレビューします！ ■LEXUS IS300h versionL 新車価格：6,100,000円 全長×全幅×全高：4720×1840×1435mm ホイールベース：2800mm 車重：1710kg（メーカー公表値） 駆動方式：FR エンジン：直列4気筒+モーター 総排気量：2493cc 最大出力： 178馬力(131kW)/6000rpm 最大トルク：22.5kg m(221N m)/4200～4800rpm @k1tsuchiya @nanako_aizawa @tk00227 #車選びドットコム#

阿里云开源「企业级 Agent 白皮书」 2026 年最新发布，是 2025 年 9 月「AI 原生应用架构白皮书」的升级续作。全书按 架构 → 构建 → 运行 → 治理 → 调优 的全生命周期组织，共 7 篇 30 章，由阿里云数十位一线工程师分工撰写，并纳入吉利、塔斯汀、MiniMax、哔哩哔哩、信永中和等外部企业案例。 它的写作动机很明确：过去一年市场重心已经从 “如何快速搭出一个 Agent” 转移到三个新挑战，工程化（从概率智能到可靠生产力）、规模化（从单点试验到智能基础设施）、组织化（从 Agent 孤岛到进入核心业务流程）。现有的框架文档和教程基本不回答这些问题，这本白皮书填补的正是这个空白。 开源地址 # 各篇核心内容 架构篇（1–2 章） 建立认知框架。给出 Agentic Application 的六个判定特征（以任务结果为中心、运行时决定部分执行路径、能作用于环境、维持跨请求状态、受确定性机制约束、可观测可评估）和成熟度四级模型（L1 辅助生成 → L2 受控自动化 → L3 Agentic Execution → L4 规模运营）。两个重要的解耦判断：用哪种形态取决于任务结构，处于哪级成熟度取决于治理完备程度；单 Agent / Long-Horizon / 多 Agent 是沿时间跨度和协作结构两个正交维度的扩展，不存在“必须升级到多 Agent”的路径。贯穿的原则是“最低充分架构”，为任务选择成本与风险可接受的最低复杂度。 构建篇（3–6 章） 是方法浓度最高的部分，按“范式—任务—信息—行动”还原构建过程： · 任务：Agent Loop 五阶段（Prepare→Model→Act→Observe→Verify）+ 十态任务状态机，要害是“消息历史不应是任务状态的唯一来源”；完成判定的核心原则是“模型只能申请完成，Harness 依据环境证据提交完成”，验证分五级并与风险匹配。 · 信息：Context 是动态“编译”而非静态字符串。本章的独创设计是 Context Manifest，每次调用记录上下文每个片段的来源、作用域、版本、信任级别、选中理由和内容哈希，使“模型看见了什么”变得可解释、可回放、可审计。信息被五分为 Context/State/Memory/Knowledge/Skill，其中 Memory（个人经验）与 Knowledge（组织内容）必须分列，因为治理责任不同，“放进同一个向量库会同时失去两类治理能力”。 · 行动：统一 Action Plane（意图→Schema 校验→身份绑定→策略决策→执行→观测），关键三分：“模型看见工具 ≠ Harness 注册了工具 ≠ 获得执行授权”。协议定位清晰：Function Calling 是模型-Harness 意图接口，MCP 是 Harness-能力提供方连接协议，A2A 面向拥有独立任务循环的远程 Agent，“协议选择由能力是否拥有独立任务循环决定，而非新旧或流行度”。 运行篇（7–12 章） 处理规模化后的工程问题，大量内容达到了分布式系统的专业深度：沙箱后端选型判据（容器/gVisor/MicroVM 按代码可信度与租户边界取舍）；状态外置后 Event Log / Checkpoint / 工作区快照三者不可互相替代，且“Durable Execution ≠ 外部动作恰好执行一次”；AI 网关对 LLM/MCP/Agent 三类流量按不同粒度治理，其中“严格预算需要原子预留而非阈值检查”的数学化分析（余额 100、两笔 80 的并发请求都会通过）是真实的并发工程细节；多 Agent 编排强调“最小充分共享”，共享的是上下文来源而非同一个 Context 窗口。 治理篇（13–16 章） 让自主运行的系统变得可信。可观测性的判据是“请求成功 ≠ 任务成功”；安全章同时把 Agent 当被攻击对象和行为主体来防护（身份是全章最扎实的部分：数字工牌、Token Exchange 权限收敛、On-Behalf-Of 且 Agent 权限 ≤ 用户权限）；资产管理把 Prompt/Skill/MCP/Agent 当作运行时依赖做注册与版本治理。第 16 章 Agent Simulation 是全书原创性最强的一章：Agent 行为之所以不可验证，是缺制度前提（角色无外部标准、失败无自然代价、身份不连续），模拟是当下唯一可做的事，本质是“用可靠 Harness 约束不可靠内核”。它甚至给出诚实的统计学提醒：n 次零违规的 95% 置信上界约为 3/n 而非零。 调优篇（17–24 章） 的组织原则是“归因决定方法”：先排除环境故障、再修 Harness、最后才动模型，“把本应由上下文或工具协议解决的问题当成模型不行，是代价最高的一类误判”。主线是数据飞轮：Trace→Trajectory→黄金数据集（输入/轨迹/结果/判据四要素）→Badcase 闭环→受控自进化（模型生成的改进一律是候选变更，须回流构建、过门禁、可回滚）。模型调优章对 SFT/Agentic RL/蒸馏的适用边界、奖励投机的三套机制分离（训练奖励、独立评测、系统硬约束）论述相当严谨，广引 DeepSeek-R1、Tulu 3、FrugalGPT 等外部工作。 总结篇（第 30 章） 是全书思想密度最高的总结。当企业同时运行多 Agent、多框架、多租户时，同样的工程要求在每个应用里被重复且不一致地实现，这本质上是缺一个共享的系统层。Agentic OS 被给出“窄定义 + 三条否定”：为 Agent 任务提供公共运行对象、能力接入、可强制边界与统一证据的系统层，它不持有任务语义、不是又一个框架、不必然改内核。能力下沉有三条判据（复用性 + 强制性或可验证性），九类管理对象（其中 Budget Lease 预算租约最易被忽略），并提出“自治上限由可撤销范围与可证明范围决定，而非模型能力”。 调研报告 的 1906 份问卷给出一个关键发现：已开发或开发中 Agent 的企业占 46%，但真正上生产的仅 18%；有评估体系的企业任务成功率是无评估者的约两倍，卡点不是模型能力，是 Harness 层的工程配套。这与全书立意互为印证。

这是 Compass 的非官方简体中文本地版。它把 Obsidian 仓库整理成一套个人管理系统，同时保留原来的 Markdown、属性键、插件语法和双链，现有工作流不容易被汉化改坏。 日记、复盘、习惯、任务、项目、联系人和写作都放进同一个 Obsidian 仓库，资料仍以 Markdown、YAML 属性和双链保存。 带有 Life OS 页面、仪表盘、模板、社区插件，也能按需接入 Agent Client 和 MCP。

here's a prompt to improve your agent harness based on what we've learned at cursor. enjoy # Improve this agent harness's token efficiency You're working on an LLM agent harness: the system prompt, tool definitions, request assembly, context caching, compaction, and retrieval, and how work is split across agents. Make the agent's runs cheaper without making it worse at its job. - Objective: lower price-weighted token cost per completed task. - Constraint: no measurable drop in task quality. Measure per task, not per request. Every turn resends the prefix (tools, instructions, setup, and the conversation so far), so a change that shrinks each request but adds turns can cost more. Weight tokens by billing type: output, uncached input, and cached input are priced very differently. Work in this order: map the harness and measure the baseline, rank the opportunities, make the changes that are safe to make directly, put the rest behind flags or in proposals, then report. Figures below come from one team's production coding agent and its multi-agent experiments. Use them to gauge magnitude, not as targets. One round of these changes (prompt trimming, tool offloading, cache layout, sparse line numbers, subagent tuning) cut that team's overall token cost about 7% with no loss in quality. The larger percentages apply only to the part of the request each change touched. ## Principles 1. Change what the harness sends, not how hard the model tries. Don't ask the model to conserve tokens. A harness that told its model to "take care to preserve tokens and not be wasteful" found it grew reluctant to take on ambitious tasks and sometimes quit, saying it wasn't supposed to waste tokens. 2. Capable models need definitions, not commands. Lists of "DO NOT", "You must", and "Important", and guards against older models' habits, can usually be replaced with plain descriptions of what each tool does. One team cut about two-thirds of its system prompt this way, and the shorter prompt worked across model families. Instruct only on what the model can't know (the product, the environment, the user's processes) and on quirks you've seen in transcripts. 3. Static context is for what most turns need. Everything else should be discoverable when needed. Less up-front context also means less confusing or contradictory information. 4. Expect removals to win. Guardrails written for weaker models, coordination steps that became bottlenecks, and prompting for behavior the model now does on its own all cost tokens. 5. Real usage decides. Evals are a fast proxy, but they skew toward hard problems and miss the real mix of requests. ## 1. Map the harness and measure the baseline Find: - Where requests are assembled, the system prompt, and tool schemas. If a framework or SDK builds requests, find its hooks for message order, cache control, and tool loading. - How tool results are formatted, and how history is kept, trimmed, or summarized. - How subagents or parallel agents are spawned, if any. - Which models and provider APIs are used. From the provider's docs, get the prompt caching behavior (automatic or explicit breakpoints, TTL, minimum cacheable length) and the prices for output, uncached input, and cached input. - Existing logging, token accounting, and evals. If the harness doesn't record per-request token usage by billing type and cache hits, add that first. Everything later depends on it. Then render a few real requests (from logs, or by running representative tasks) and count tokens per section with the model's tokenizer or the API's usage fields. Produce: - Cost share by source × billing type. Sources: system prompt, tool definitions, skill/rule/integration descriptions, user messages, file reads, search results, command and other tool output, history, summaries, subagents. - Static tokens per request, cache hit rate, and turns per task. - Per tool: the share of runs that call it at least once, and its error rate. Read the rendered requests, not just the templates. Duplication, leaked volatile values, and misordered blocks only show up there. Rank opportunities by share of spend × fraction removable ÷ quality risk. ## 2. System prompt and injected context Label every instruction: - Keep: product or environment knowledge the model can't infer, fixes for quirks seen in this model's transcripts, and rules a mode depends on. - Rewrite: commands and emphasis into plain descriptions. Reminders into constraints: "No TODOs, no partial implementations" works better than "remember to finish implementations." Vague quantities into ranges: "generate 20–100 tasks" gets far more ambitious behavior than "generate many tasks." - Delete: things capable models do by default, guards against behavior you haven't seen from this model, text that repeats tool descriptions, and lines that could contradict a user request. Models trained to rank system instructions above user messages will side with the system prompt. - Move: anything per-user or per-request (date, environment, repo state, lists of skills or subagents, user rules) into a user-role setup message after the cache boundary. Audit other injected context the same way. As models improved, the team behind these figures dropped directory trees, pre-retrieved snippets, compressed copies of attached files, lint errors injected after every edit, forced expansion of short file reads, and caps on tool calls per turn. They kept small, high-value facts: OS, repo status, and open or recently viewed files. Skip checklists for open-ended work. The model optimizes the listed items and deprioritizes everything else. ## 3. Tool definitions Tool schemas ride along on every request. Most tools beyond the core set were each needed in under 20% of conversations, and moving them out of static context cut tool-description tokens 60%. Doing the same for integration tools (such as MCP servers), with names in context and full schemas in one folder per server that the agent can search with grep or jq, cut total tokens 46.9% in sessions that used them. - Keep in static context: high-frequency tools (for a coding agent: read, search, edit, shell), tools the model tries to call even when they're absent, and tools a mode depends on. - Offload the rest: leave a name or one-line pointer and make the full schema discoverable on demand. Group related tools so they load together, and put status (such as "needs re-authentication") where the agent will see it. - Tighten what remains: describe behavior and arguments, and drop usage lectures. - Pick the split by testing a few configurations and tracking tokens, cost, latency, tool-call errors, and task success. ## 4. Cache layout Order each request so the reusable prefix is as long as possible: `tool definitions → system instructions → [breakpoint] → setup message (skills, subagents, rules, environment) → [breakpoint] → conversation` - Keep the prefix byte-identical across turns. Use deterministic tool order and serialization, put timestamps and IDs after the boundary, and don't rewrite earlier messages except when compacting. - Use explicit breakpoints if the provider supports them. Otherwise rely on automatic prefix caching with the stable part first. Respect TTL and minimum-length rules. - Switching models mid-conversation throws away the cache (caches are per model and provider) and hands the new model a history it didn't write. When a different model is needed, run it as a subagent with fresh context. Explicit breakpoints plus moving per-request setup after them cut cold cache misses 20%. ## 5. Tool results and other context added during a run - Large outputs (commands, integrations, logs): write them to a file and return the path, size, and a short tail. The agent can tail, grep, or read ranges for more. Truncating loses data, and inlining bloats every later request. Treat long-running terminal sessions the same way. - High-volume formats: look for overhead repeated on every line or item. Numbering every 10th line of a file read instead of every line cut cache-read tokens 1.6% without hurting citation accuracy. Each number costs 3–5 tokens, and agents read tens of thousands of lines per session. Also check repeated absolute paths, verbose JSON keys, ANSI codes, progress bars, and repeated headers. - Good retrieval saves exploration turns. Adding semantic search alongside grep raised codebase question-answering accuracy 12.5% on average and cut the iterations users needed. - Tool errors waste tokens and leave confusing debris in context. Classify expected errors (invalid arguments, unexpected environment, provider error, timeout, user abort), treat unknown errors as harness bugs, and track rates per tool and per model. One focused effort along these lines cut unexpected tool errors 10×. ## 6. Long runs: compaction, subagents, and model mix - Compaction: keep the summarization prompt short and the summary compact, carry forward plan state and remaining tasks, and save the full history to a file the agent can search for details the summary dropped. A model trained to self-summarize from a one-line prompt wrote ~1k-token summaries with half the compaction error of a multi-thousand-token prompt that produced 5k+ token summaries. Untrained models may need more guidance, so test how short you can go. A more expensive summarization model made a negligible difference. - Scratchpads and running notes: rewrite them instead of appending. For repeated work in one environment, a small agent-maintained notes file with a line budget, loaded at start, is a promising way to shorten later runs. - Subagents: fresh context keeps the parent lean, but isolation adds coordination cost (duplicate or stale work). If the model already delegates on its own, remove prompting that pushes it to. Have subagents return short handoffs: what was done, findings, concerns, and deviations. A subagent should use a different model only when the user or harness says so. - Model mix: in large multi-agent runs, workers used at least 69% of tokens, and over 90% in most runs. A frontier planner with cheap workers matched a frontier model doing everything at about one-eighth the cost. Planner choice still changes worker spend. One planner that cost less on its own saw its workers use several times more tokens, and the run cost more overall. Measure the whole tree. - Routing and reasoning effort: send simple turns to a cheaper model or lower effort, and upgrade only when a stronger model is clearly better. A router built this way matched or beat single frontier models on user satisfaction at 41–68% lower cost. - Reasoning continuity: if the API returns reasoning items (including encrypted ones), pass them back on later turns and alert when they go missing. Dropping them cost one reasoning model 30% on a coding benchmark, and it burned tokens reconstructing its plan. ## 7. Fit the harness to each model Adapt to what each model was trained on instead of forcing one shape on all of them. If you've tuned the harness for a similar model, start from that version. - Edit format: use the one the model was trained on (for example, patch-style or search-and-replace). An unfamiliar format costs extra reasoning tokens and causes more mistakes. - Shell or tools: shell-first models fall back to `cat` or inline scripts. Name tools after their shell equivalents (such as `rg`), and if needed add: "If a tool exists for an action, prefer to use the tool instead of shell commands (e.g. read_file over `cat`)." - Literalness: some model families follow instructions literally and others tolerate imprecision. Some spiral on emphasized wording. Strip caps and emphasis for literal models. - Triggers: some models ignore a tool until told when to use it. A literal trigger works: "After substantive edits, use the to check recently edited files for linter errors. If you've introduced any, fix them if you can easily figure out how." - Progress updates: if a model reports progress through reasoning summaries, keep them to 1–2 sentences that note new findings or a change of tactic, and remove instructions about messaging mid-turn. - Quirks worth a targeted line: hedging or refusing as context fills ("context anxiety"), declaring completion early, stopping to ask permission, and calling tools that don't exist. Tie each added instruction to the transcript behavior it fixes. Re-audit when models change, since guidance one version needed can be dead weight for the next. ## 8. Validate - Offline: run a fixed set of realistic tasks before and after, ideally drawn from real usage and phrased the way users actually write (short and ambiguous). Compare task success, tokens, cost per task, turns, and tool errors. Don't ship a change that lowers success. - Online, if you have users: A/B test each change or small bundle. The primary metric is cost per completed task. Guardrails are task success signals, tool-call errors, latency, turns per task, and cache hit rate. For a coding agent, a good success signal is how much agent-written code survives over time. In general, check whether the user's next message moves on or reports a problem. - Ship only when cost drops and no guardrail regresses beyond noise. Record null results. ## What to change directly and what to propose - Change directly, each in its own revertible commit: token and cache telemetry, deterministic serialization and tool order, moving volatile content out of the cached prefix, explicit cache breakpoints, writing large outputs to files instead of truncating, passing back reasoning items that are being dropped, and fixes for recurring tool errors. - Change behind a flag so it can be tested: system prompt edits, tool offloading, output format changes, compaction changes, and subagent prompting. - Propose only: changes to which models run, routing, reasoning-effort defaults, or how work is split across agents. ## Traps - Asking the model to use fewer tokens or do less. - Truncating tool output. - Dropping reasoning items to save input tokens. - Volatile content in the cached prefix, or tool order that changes between requests. - Offloading a tool the model needs on the first turn or tries to call when it's missing. - Emphasis-heavy prompts (MUST, NEVER, IMPORTANT, all caps), especially with literal models. - Forcing a terser output format than the model was trained on. Fewer output tokens can mean less thinking and worse results. - Optimizing raw token counts instead of cost, per request instead of per task, or evals instead of real usage. - Switching models mid-conversation to save money. - Adding coordination layers that become bottlenecks. ## Report back with 1. The harness map and baseline: cost by source × billing type, with the biggest sources called out. 2. A ranked list of changes: layer, what changes, estimated savings and how you estimated them, quality risk, how to validate, and how to roll back. 3. The changes you made, including a system prompt diff with a keep, rewrite, delete, or move reason for each line. 4. A test plan for the flagged changes. 5. Gaps: anything you couldn't find or measure.

Your agent. Your rules. Which permission would you enable first? Choose access: market data, wallet, portfolio, trading Automate workflows with guardrails in place Require approval for big moves Set up agent-to-agent payments Build with Agent OS →

Agent OS just crossed 200K daily calls.. The strongest demand? Real-time market data, live prices, positions and account info. Users are turning to Agent OS for real-time access to the data that matters. And we're just getting started. 👀