与「ROOT」相关的搜索结果

开发系统最极致高效的Agents.md，没有之一： # AGENTS.md ## Core Principles - Choose the simplest implementation that fully satisfies the current requirements. Avoid unnecessary abstraction, configuration, indirection, or speculative extensibility. - Make the smallest necessary change that fixes the root cause. Do not refactor unrelated modules or change strategy semantics unless explicitly requested. - Grow the system in layers. Start from the smallest working end-to-end version and add new capabilities incrementally. Never replace a working system with unfinished complexity. - Reuse existing project components before creating new ones. Prefer extending proven modules over introducing parallel implementations. - Prefer well-maintained libraries when they reduce overall complexity or improve reliability. Do not reimplement common functionality without a clear benefit. - Keep components modular with clearly defined responsibilities. Avoid unnecessary coupling between strategy logic, execution, accounting, replay, and infrastructure. - Design for long-term maintainability once a feature or strategy has been validated. Do not over-engineer speculative ideas before evidence exists. --- ## Strategy Development - Validate hypotheses with historical replay before introducing forward-only logic whenever historical validation is possible. - Every trading strategy must progress through Replay → Shadow → Canary → Live. Do not skip validation stages. - Base design decisions on measurable evidence rather than intuition. Optimize only after demonstrating that an edge exists. - Treat every strategy as an independent contract. Do not silently alter frozen behavior without explicit authorization. --- ## Existing Systems - Do not break running Shadow or Live systems for unrelated work. - Preserve compatibility only when required by active production or validation workflows. Otherwise, remove obsolete code instead of accumulating compatibility layers. - Reuse existing infrastructure whenever possible, including replay engines, accounting, execution, wallet management, order book handling, logging, monitoring, and daemon frameworks. --- ## Engineering Standards - Prefer deterministic behavior over hidden automation. - Fail loudly when assumptions are violated. Do not silently ignore errors or fall back to unexpected behavior. - Keep configuration minimal. Introduce new configuration only when behavior genuinely needs to vary. - Remove dead code instead of leaving unused paths behind. - Write code that is easy to inspect, replay, test, and reason about. - Keep implementation consistent with existing project architecture unless an architectural change is explicitly requested. --- ## Scope Discipline - Implement only the requested scope. - Do not introduce unrelated optimizations, redesigns, migrations, or feature expansions. - Non-blocking findings outside the requested scope may be noted separately but must not be merged into the current task. - Consider a task complete once its agreed acceptance criteria are satisfied. Treat subsequent improvements as separate work items.

AI模型评分都是被专项攻坚创造出来的，于是我对比了Fable5，Grok4.5， Kimi K3针对同一个交易系统审计结果进行了对比。 先说结论： Fable5：最适合作为系统级主审核模型 Kimi：最适合作为代码缺陷与一致性专项审核模型 Grok：最适合作为代码梳理和方案发散模型，不适合单独决定策略修改 最佳组合：Fable5全面审核+Grok 4.5代码梳理+K3代码审核 具体细节： 1. Fable5：系统级判断能力最强 Fable5 最大的优势不是代码读得比另外两个模型更多，而是它能把： 代码规则； sizing snapshot； intent ledger； 实际 block 统计； 当前资产 headroom； SELL/REDEEM 回流路径； 放进同一个因果框架。 它使用了几个非常关键的实盘指标： ADD 近 7 天约占新增资金 43%； 84% 资金已经部署； ETH、SOL、XRP headroom 为 0； 近 40 个周期中主要阻塞是：blocked_capital_efficiency=47 blocked_asset_cap=28 deployment cap=0 runway=0 这让它能够区分： “某个机制理论上可能限制资金” 和 “当前实盘真正正在限制资金的机制”。 最终它得出： ADD 对资金流向重要，但当前周转主因在回收端、资产 cap 和效率过滤，不在 ADD 准入本身。 这是三个模型中最接近生产系统审核要求的判断。 弱点 Fable5 仍有一些过度推断： 把 ADD 描述为让资金“锁得更久”，实际上 ADD 的剩余 TTE 通常比 ENTRY 短； 把超 cap 资产总持仓约 $382 说成可以“直接解锁 $382”，没有区分总持仓、超额部分和可成交部分； 把模型中的 redeem_lag_days=2 一度当作实际回款延迟； “$5 仓位几乎不受每美元每日利润门约束”的推理不正确，因为该指标已经按资金归一化； 2-lot 最低 ENTRY 建议可能系统性损失覆盖率。 因此，Fable5 的系统方向判断最好，但具体数字和金融指标仍需二次校验。 最适合的角色 PRIMARY_SYSTEM_REVIEWER LIVE_OPERATIONAL_DIAGNOSIS CHANGE_PRIORITY_DECISION CROSS_MODULE_ROOT_CAUSE_ANALYSIS 2. Kimi：代码缺陷侦测能力最强 Kimi 对代码结构的还原比较准确： 固定 ADD 次数和 interval 已退役； ADD 采用 target-gap 模型； ENTRY 60%，ADD 补到 100%； allocator 是最终数量权威； style 仅作诊断； 现金、集中度、shock、深度共同限制订单。 更重要的是，Kimi 找出了其他两个模型没有明确指出的具体问题： shared_deployable_pool() 读取 account_snap["capital"]["deployable_cash"] 但该字段可能没有实际写入 → 回退到 free_cash → 策略层与 allocator 层资金口径可能不一致 它还发现了： 合同写 debounce 60 秒，代码/配置为 30 秒； 注释周期 16 分钟，实际 loop 600 秒。 这些是典型的静态审核、字段追踪和合同一致性检查优势。 弱点 Kimi 在资本效率和交易语义上的推理弱于它的代码检查能力。 典型错误是： ADD 价格更高，所以边际 edge/day 必然更差。 这忽略了剩余持有时间也缩短。更高 ask 并不必然意味着更低 edge/day。 它还认为： 60/40 会让剩余资金长期闲置； 提高 entry share 会改善周转； CONFIRMATION_NO 应收紧； 增加单市场软 cap 会改善组合周转。 这些结论缺少真实候选竞争、实际 block attribution 和反事实分配数据支持。 最适合的角色 STATIC_CODE_AUDITOR SCHEMA_AND_FIELD_FLOW_CHECKER CONTRACT_IMPLEMENTATION_DIFF LOCALIZED_BUG_DISCOVERY Kimi 很适合回答： “代码是否存在字段没有写入、默认值回退、文档与实现不一致、某个 gate 实际是否生效？” 但不适合单独回答： “应该如何改变交易策略和资本分配？” 3. Grok：代码梳理最完整，但最容易过度设计 Grok 对整个 ADD 路径的整理最详尽： 各层准入条件； risk latch； REDUCE reentry cooldown； 价格带； fingerprint； emergency cap； market target； ENTRY/ADD gap； allocator 的现金、集中度、shock 和深度约束； ADD 与 ENTRY 的评分和 continuity； SELL/REDEEM 对现金回收的影响。 它对当前代码执行模型的概括非常清楚： 能不能加由 headroom 决定；加多少由 target gap 离散为 lot；ADD style 只是解释标签。 因此，在“快速理解一个陌生复杂系统”方面，Grok 表现很好。 弱点 Grok 最大的问题是： 从“发现一个可能的机制副作用”快速跳到“建议修改策略”。 它提出了大量未经实盘证明的改动： TIME_TOPUP 冷却； ADD 1.5 倍 edge/day 门槛； ask≥0.97 限制为 1 lot； 降低 peak target； 提高 entry share； 单次仅补部分 gap； 弱化 continuity； 降低 TTE confirmation 权重。 这些建议表面上都很合理，但存在三个问题： 没有先证明这些机制实际造成了损失； 没有量化被 ADD 挤出的 ENTRY 是否更优； 可能重新引入此前已经修复的低 ADD recall 和 leader fidelity 偏差。 Grok很擅长生成完整优化空间，但容易把： POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECT 升级成： CONFIRMED ROOT CAUSE 再进一步升级成： SHOULD CHANGE PRODUCTION LOGIC 这是生产交易系统审核中最危险的倾向。 最适合的角色 SYSTEM_MAPPING CODE_AND_CONFIG_EXPLANATION HYPOTHESIS_GENERATION DESIGN_OPTION_ENUMERATION 不适合作为唯一的： PRODUCTION_CHANGE_APPROVER ROOT_CAUSE_FINAL_AUTHORITY STRATEGY_SEMANTICS_GATEKEEPER 三个模型的典型思维模式 Grok 发现机制 → 推演可能副作用 → 生成多种优化 → 倾向建议修改 优点：覆盖广、思路多。 风险：过度设计、假设升级过快。 Kimi 追踪代码和字段 → 找实现不一致 → 找局部缺陷 → 尝试从缺陷推导策略改进 优点：代码问题定位强。 风险：局部正确不等于系统结论正确。 Fable5 理解代码 → 读取运行数据 → 找实际 binding constraint → 区分主因和次因 → 按实盘收益排序 优点：最接近生产运营思维。 风险：仍会在个别指标含义和金额口径上过度断言。

800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty in China thanks to a little bit of capitalism. Central planning doesn’t work. At least Deng Xiaoping saw Mao’s catastrophic blunders and understood that. Which is why when he took power, he ripped out the collectivized economy by the roots. >let farmers work their own plots and sell what they grew instead of farming for the state (food production soared almost overnight) >carved out Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen where foreign capital could operate under different rules than the rest of communist China > poverty crashed from nearly 90% in 1981 to under 4% by 2016 On his Southern Tour in 1992, Deng told CCP officials “to get rich is glorious.” He was right btw. And it is best done through private property and free markets.

This is quite a good article on how the cubic formula works, and particularly how root-finding is connected to symmetries (key background for understanding the impossibility of a quintic formula)

Emerging markets are where TradFi takes root. For early‑twenties investors with smaller balances, this isn’t convenience. It’s first access to global markets. This is where the door opens.

In the last decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted effort to rewrite our history and force a factually baseless ideology that discredits American heroes. The Report shows Smithsonian leadership shifted the mission from celebrating our shared heritage to extreme political activism rooted in Marxism, dividing and discouraging Americans. President Trump is reestablishing confidence in the Smithsonian and ensuring our heritage is celebrated. 🇺🇸

🚨SlowMist TI Alert🚨 💸 @LienFinance Loss: ~542k USD 🔍 Root Cause: The `exchangeEquivalentBonds` function in BondMakerCollateralizedEth lacks proper multiset integrity checks. It only counts total exception occurrences instead of verifying each bondID's appearance per group. By repeating a single exception bondID in the output group, attackers consumed the exception count twice, masking a missing input exception. This allowed minting new non-exception BondTokens without burning the corresponding input bonds, which were then sold for USDC from a pre-approved victim address. 📌 Attacker: 0x0d7d9023531ad1a88414e216ee2715f63561808a 📌 Victim: 0xa961684a3a654fb2cca8f8991226c0cefc514d80 📌 Vulnerable Contract: 0xda6fc5625e617bb92f5359921d43321cebc6bef0, 0x843225cf6e663e4454732d6b551a737ac7b47de0 Attackers exploited the flawed exception-counting logic to mint unbacked bond tokens, swapped them for USDC via three pre-authorized endpoints, and drained 542,144.628604 USDC from the victim. Powered by Tx:

The red pagoda printed on classic Chinese takeout boxes traces its roots to Nanjing’s Porcelain Tower Appearing in our video footage, this historic landmark was exhibited at the 48th session of the World Heritage Committee.