与「SES」相关的搜索结果

In Shijiazhuang, Hebei: Hot Ganglu sesame flatbread fresh out of the oven, filled with donkey meat — so delicious you can’t stop eating. 河北石家庄：刚出炉缸炉烧饼夹驴肉，香到停不下来。 #FoodTravel# #GangluSesameFlatbread#

说一下A\现在的工程师工作流程： 所有MTS的claude session共享。 所有的项目共享。每个人可以搜到其他人的session history. 每个人可以抢占其他人的tasks去做，谁做出来credit是谁的。 平均一个人有7-10个tasks在queue里，做的快的飞快。 做的慢的，queue里的7个task一眨眼就被人家抢走6个，自己那个还没做完。

我从2025年就一直反复强调。 现在所有大学本科生最重要的第一节课，就是买一个最大的coding plan，用上claude code或者codex， 第二节课是自己做一个最最最小版本的coding agent，可以对比codex或者claode code的基本功能，只要能输入一个基本功能，iteratively让agent完成写代码、编译、测试、 运行的功能即可，一切在terminal里，先把terminal和tool calling功能做好， 第三节课是认真观察codex和claude code的基本功能，把里面的memory、skills、multi agent/subagent、background tasks、session管理、context compression、TUI/GUI设计、如何可视化diff、如何管理好额外的btw等等类似的功能、如何把goal的功能放进去、如何实现scheduled tasks、如何实现权限管理等等，一步步一点点摸索实现出来。 我反复讲，一个计算机本科生能看完立党AI研究学习教程，把上面这三节课做完，就已经吊打清华计算机80%以上的本科生了。

有个非常好用的工具，可以帮你把亚洲盘，伦敦盘和纽约盘的高低点自动框出来，不用每天对着时间找位置，再一段段手动画线。 它叫 Trading Sessions，交易时段指标。 你可以修改每个时段的起止时间，也可以只保留自己关注的时段。 它会把在指定时段内开盘的 K 线归到一起，框的上沿是这些 K 线的最高价，下沿是最低价。 时段还没结束时，出现新高或新低，框就跟着扩大。 结束后，这段行情的高低范围就固定下来，方便后续对照。 最实用的地方，是用前一个时段的高低点，观察后面的价格变化。 比如亚洲盘一直在一个范围内横盘，伦敦开盘后，价格开始向上突破。 这时可以对照亚洲盘的上沿，观察价格能否保持在原来的区间之外，以及回落时能否守住这个位置。 如果价格突破后很快又跌回框内，就表示这次突破暂时没有站稳。如果回踩上沿后继续上涨，则可以继续观察价格能否进一步走高。 它也能帮你区分，一个时段内的价格是反复震荡，还是整体朝一个方向移动。 开启开盘线和收盘线，就能对照这个时段的开盘价和收盘价。 框很高，但收盘接近开盘，说明期间波动较大，最终涨跌幅却不大；如果收盘接近最高点，而且明显高于开盘，则说明这个时段结束时，价格仍保留了大部分涨幅。 框内还可以显示均价线，计算方法是把这个时段里每根 K 线的收盘价相加，再除以根数。它方便你比较当前价格与这一时段均价的位置关系，但没有按成交量加权，不能当成平均持仓成本。 设置时需要留意时区。纽约用 America/New_York，伦敦用 Europe/London，可以跟随当地夏令时自动调整，避免换季后，框出的时间错开一小时。 如果你只关注美股开盘后的第一个小时，也可以把它单独设成一个时段。 每天自动标出这一小时的高低点，再观察后续价格是否突破，突破后是否回到框内，就不用每天重复查找时间和画线了。

阿里把团队内部用了两年的官方 AI Code Review Skills 开源了，采用 “确定性工程 pipeline + AI Agent” 的混合架构，专门解决通用 Agent 做代码审查时 “漏审、定位漂移、质量不稳” 的老问题。 40.5K ✨ 开源项目 OpenCodeReview： # 核心设计：确定性工程 pipeline × Agent 各司其职 确定性工程负责硬约束： · 精确文件选择：用代码决定哪些文件必须审、哪些要过滤，不依赖模型自觉； · 智能文件捆绑：把相关文件合成一个审查单元（例如 message_en.properties 和 message_zh.properties 捆绑），每个单元以上下文隔离的 sub-agent 运行，分治策略让超大变更集也稳，且天然支持并发（默认 8 个文件 worker）； · 细粒度规则匹配：内置约 54 个按语言/文件类型的规则文档（Java、Go、TS/JS、Python、Rust、SQL/XML mapper、properties 等），用模板引擎而非自然语言把规则匹配到文件特征上，从源头消除信息噪声； · 外部定位与反思模块：评论的“落点”和“内容”分别由独立的 re-location 和 reflection 模块系统性校正，这正对“位置漂移”痛点。 Agent 负责动态决策： · 深度优化的场景 prompt（内部分为 plan → grouping → main → memory_compression → re_location → review_filter 多个任务模板，可在 internal/config/template/prompts/ 看到）； · 从海量生产环境的 tool-call 轨迹（调用频率分布、单工具重复率、新工具对调用链的影响）反向蒸馏出的专用工具集，包括全文件读取、代码搜索、其他变更文件查阅等，比通用 agent 工具箱更小更稳。 # 能力面与生态集成 功能上覆盖：workspace/分支区间/单 commit 审查、断点恢复（ocr session）、全文件 scan（无 git 历史也能审计陌生代码库）、本地 Session Viewer 网页查看与回放、SARIF/JSON 输出、OpenTelemetry 可观测性、MCP Server 扩展。 作为 “Skills 生态” 级项目，它的形态相当完整：既提供 npm 全局 CLI，也提供可移植的 Agent Skill（skills/open-code-review/SKILL.md，带标准 frontmatter，可直接被兼容 skill 的 agent 加载），还有面向 Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、Kimi Code、OpenCode 等平台的插件，每种都封装成斜杠命令或可调用 skill。LLM 侧兼容 OpenAI、Anthropic、AWS Bedrock 三类协议，并可直接复用 Claude Code 的 ANTHROPIC_* 环境变量。 其中一个设计很巧妙：Delegation 模式（ocr delegate preview/rule）。此时 OCR 只做自己擅长的确定性部分（文件选择和规则解析）审查本身交给宿主 coding agent 的 LLM 执行，用户无需给 OCR 配任何 API key。这实际上是把“harness 能力”与“模型能力”彻底解耦。 # 工程质量：超出平均水准的部分 · 安全有正式的 Assurance Case（ASSURANCE_CASE.md）：完整的威胁模型、四条信任边界、T1–T7 威胁逐条给出缓解措施，并按 Saltzer & Schroeder 设计原则和 OWASP Top 10 做了映射。细节经得起推敲：所有外部进程调用只限 git 且子命令硬编码、--end-of-options 防 flag 注入；Agent 读文件路径经 pathutil.WithinBase() 在符号链接解析前后双重校验；本地 Viewer 有 Host 白名单防 DNS rebinding + 严格 CSP。这类文档在一般开源项目里非常罕见。 · 贡献规范近乎严苛（AGENTS.md）：使用 AI 必须在 issue/PR 中披露工具与模型、必须逐行理解 AI 生成的代码、禁止“AI 生成→反复修复→再修复”的循环、禁止把 commit 署名给 AI。源码强制英文（CI 有 english-check，连全角标点都查）、90% 测试覆盖率门槛、-race 与 govulncheck 每次 push 都跑、SPDX 头与 LF 行尾强制。 # Benchmark：数据情况 官方基准 AACR-Bench（已在 Hugging Face 开放）规模不小：50 个流行开源仓库、200 个真实 PR、10 种语言、80+ 资深工程师交叉验证出 1505 条标注问题。结论是同模型对比 Claude Code：Precision 和 F1 显著更高、token 消耗约为 1/9、速度更快。 需要指出两点：其一，Recall 低于通用 agent，README 自己承认这是“以精度换噪声”的刻意权衡，如果你最怕漏问题而非误报，可能不适合；其二，该基准由阿里自建，虽开放了数据集供社区复核，但独立第三方的复现结论目前还少，可以把它当作“有披露的、方向可信的参考”。

卧槽，兄弟们！Muse 这波已经被 GitHub 玩明白了 Muse爆火！我找到 3 个专门给 用的免费开源项目，直接把 Muse 从“聊天工具”升级成更强的 Agent 工作流 1、让 Muse 真正帮你干活：任务模板库 里面整理了 100+ 个 Agent 工作流模板，覆盖研究、自动化、信息整理等场景，你想要的都有！ 不用每次重新设计 Prompt，直接复制修改，几分钟就能搭建自己的 AI 助手 2、让 Muse 进入终端：Muse CLI 支持聊天、目标管理、动态查看、Ideas 和 Sessions 功能，让开发者日常调用效率提升 50%+ 把 Muse 直接搬到 Terminal，不用频繁切换网页了 3、让其他 AI 调用 Muse：Muse MCP 通过 MCP 协议连接 Muse，让 Codex、Claude Code 等多个 Agent 可以调用 Muse 能力 把单个 AI 助手升级成多 Agent 协作流程，扩展效率提升 10 倍

Cloud sessions are officially available and out of research preview! They let you keep Claude Code working, even when your laptop is closed. Existing subscribers get a one-time credit to try them: $100 on Pro, $250 on Max.

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.