与「note」相关的搜索结果

Every TMF pass will have an on chain note as to how it was earned and who received it, and that is visualized on the pass itself. That way if anyone is curious how someone earned their spot or why they got it, they can look on chain and see.

[开源学习资源] AI Engineering from Scratch 59.8K ⭐️ 作者 @ghumare64 课程共 20 个阶段，以 Python 为主要编程语言，主张在导入任何框架之前，先用纯数学把每个算法手写一遍。 课程地址： 开源地址： 它和常见教程的本质区别 ？ 大多数 AI 教程是“API 驱动”的：装个库、调个接口、跑个 demo。这个项目反其道而行，每节课遵循固定的六段结构： Motto → Problem → Concept → Build It → Use It → Ship It 以 Phase 10 的一节课「Tokenizers: BPE, WordPiece, SentencePiece」 为例，这个格式是真实落地的，而且写作质量相当高： · Problem 部分不讲废话，直接从代价切入：“你的 LLM 不读英语，它读整数。分词器决定这些整数是承载意义还是浪费意义”，然后解释为什么 tokenization 不是预处理，它是架构的一部分（影响上下文窗口利用率、API 计费、推理速度）。 · Concept 部分用“三种失败的方案和一种胜出的方案”来讲演化逻辑：词级切分（词表爆炸、[UNK] 问题）→ 字符级切分（序列过长）→ 子词切分（BPE 的折中），并配上真实语料上 BPE 逐步合并的手工演算。 每节约 3000+ 词，带 Mermaid 图、可运行代码和测试。 另外两个设计值得强调： · 每节课产出一个可复用的 artifact，一个 prompt、一个 skill、一个 agent 或一个 MCP server。学完整个课程，你手里有 523 个可展示的作品，不是 523 个跑完就扔的 notebook。 · 强调“证据留存”：保留命令、退出码、输出，作为学习发生的证明。这明显吸收了工程实践中“可验证性”的思路。 # 课程结构：从线性代数到自主智能体集群 20 个阶段构成一条完整的上升曲线，咱们它分成五个大块来看： 基础层（Phase 0–2）：环境与工具链、数学基础（线性代数/概率/微积分）、经典机器学习。这是给基础不牢的读者铺的路。 深度学习与感知层（Phase 3–6）：神经网络核心、计算机视觉（一路讲到 NeRF、高斯泼溅、世界模型，这已经超出一般教程的覆盖范围）、NLP、语音。 生成与决策层（Phase 7–9）：Transformer 深挖、生成式 AI（GAN、扩散模型、flow matching）、强化学习。 LLM 层（Phase 10–12）：这是全课程的重心之一。Phase 10 的目录我逐条看过，它不只是“从零实现 GPT”这种常规内容，还包含了相当前沿的论文级主题：DeepSeek-V3 架构走读、DualPipe 并行策略、Native Sparse Attention（NSA）、多 token 预测、Jamba 的 SSM-Transformer 混合架构、 speculative decoding 等。Phase 11 转向应用侧（RAG、LoRA、MCP、可观测性），Phase 12 覆盖多模态（从 CLIP 到 computer-use agent）。 智能体层（Phase 13–16）：工具与协议（MCP、A2A、Agent Skills）、54 节课的 agent 工程、自主系统与安全、多智能体集群。这一层的分量很能说明项目的判断：它认为 AI 工程的重心正在从“训模型”转向“构建可靠协作的智能体”。 收尾（Phase 17–19）：生产基础设施、伦理与对齐、毕业设计。 # 生态与周边：不只是一个课程仓库 网站：带浏览器本地存储的学习进度追踪、术语表、课程目录和路线图。 六卷本书籍：课程内容由 CI（pandoc）自动构建成 EPUB/PDF，附在 GitHub Releases 上，课程即书，且随仓库持续更新。 Agent 导师模式：运行 npx skills add rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch，可以把整个课程装进 Claude Code、Codex 等编码智能体，变成一个带分级测验（placement quiz）和个性化路径的交互式导师，学习进度写在 LEARNING.md 里。这是“用你正在学的工具来学”的巧妙闭环。 认证备考：5 条备考路径、67 节课、505 道练习题，覆盖 Anthropic 的 Claude 认证和 Agentic AI Foundation 的 MCPA。项目明确声明与这些考试机构无关联，只是独立的备考材料。 12 种语言的翻译（含中文），以及四条核心学习路径（构建与部署 AI 应用、软件工程基础、Agent 辅助工程、产品判断与交付）供不同目标的人选路。

"Everything I touch with my keyboard and mouse, I try to delegate to my bots." Here's my new episode with @poteto and @pengzheng_, the eng and design leads for Grok @bot, where they showed me the 14 bots they use for work and life, including: → A design bot that turns one keyframe into a full user flow → An eng lead bot that manages a team of eng bots → How to trust your bots with more of your work Some quotes from both: "I like to call it the Michelin kitchen…when you say software factory, it has this connotation of mass manufactured slop." "Sometimes I actually don't even look at the PR until after it's landed and then I'm like, 'Oh, okay. Yeah, that looks good.'" "I think it ultimately comes back to trust. First, watch your bot work and correct it. Turn what worked into a skill. Once it nails the task in one shot, make it a routine." 📌 Watch now: Thanks to our sponsors: @meetgranola: AI meeting notes that don’t suck @RiversidedotFM: All-in-one AI studio for podcasts and video

继续学习两条 SEO 的黑科技：1 在 youtube 拍视频介绍你的产品 How-to 教程 产品对比 工具评测这类意图的关键词 Google 经常直接出视频卡 小频道的视频有时能压过权威博客 这个之前也学习过 看了一些词确实如此 这些词叫 video keyword 种子词就用产品真实使用场景 不要用硬广 2 这些别的地方看到的，我还没实践，不知道真假 把自己产品的文章挂到google 的全家桶中 比如 公开的google docs / Chrome Web Store / Google Drive / NotebookLM 说是可以很快被 google 索引

Note: you can repoint your wallet RPC to localhost, though make sure to set your node up so it functions as an RPC. However, many in-browser dapps will not work as effectively this way, and many others hardcoded their RPC to their own server. I am increasingly becoming a fan of avoiding browser dapps entirely and just doing everything by command line. Just did a full end-to-end test: updated my ENS record using a local python script reading and sending through my local node.

President Xi noted in his toast remarks that this visit has added new substance to the constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability, and provided new strategic guidance for China-U.S. relations. The two sides must act as responsible major countries, meet the expectations of the two peoples, keep pace with the trend of the times, explore a new approach for major countries to get along with each other, and write a new chapter in their friendly relations.

SpaceXAI / X : Check out @Grok in an XChat Group chat. you can tag it for direct queries, ask it to make pictures or videos, ask for reminders. ( it has temporal awareness) ask for a summary of the chat ( since it joined), or do any of the other typical things you would ask grok. The neatest thing is, it also participates organically and chimes in whenever it feels the need to, reacts to some messages when it finds things funny or to give a thumbs up. ( you dont have to explicitly tag or mention it in other words). Its like having just another member of the chat that is also super useful . This is so cool! Note: Still in testing and not yet released.

President Xi noted in his remarks that building a constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability is widely welcomed by the people of the two countries and the international community. President Xi is ready to work with President Trump to steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relationship on a steady course toward the future. 🔸China and the United States should strengthen communication to understand each other better, seek common ground while shelving differences, and build up mutual trust. 🔸China and the United States should cooperate with sincerity. The interests of the two countries are deeply intertwined, and there is plenty of room for them to work together. The two countries have both the capability and responsibility to develop and manage AI for good. 🔸China and the United States should coexist in peace, and hold the line of no conflict and no confrontation.

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.