> Agents need to handle recurring tasks reliably and effectively
This core problem remains unsolved. The solution presented in the article with Human In The Loop and some skill-magic such as "Write principles, not rules etc." is unsatisfactory because it offers no guarantees whatsoever. I find it difficult to harness agents into deterministic workflows which need to produce reliable outcomes. Agents are great in use cases where humans work with them, but left alone, all bets are off.
I was bit confused in the beginning thinking its some product from Anthropic, looks like Warp is the startup, most likely getting rebate on using Claude and providing functionality to users, trying to get them addicted to the feature. And Anthropic is the one thats doing marketing for them cause eventually its their LLM which is being used. Not sure about the agents but this arrangement is definitely increasing the value of both companies in circular fashion.
No I am not alluding the financing, the value for both companies for sure. It may not be exactly circular financing still Warp is getting subsidized tokens to use at this point. Once the customers are locked in the full pricing is going to kick in
I already knew what Warp is (I switched to Ghostty and haven't looked back), but I find it odd that the "The quick pitch" card at the top of this article makes no mention of what the company actually does. Who cares more about their founder/growth/age over that?
The fact that it’s called “the quick pitch” screams Claude-written pithyness pulled from some context that doesn’t match the article’s style (like investment pitch decks).
I've already been playing with something similar locally where the agent updates the review skill if human reviewers make valid criticisms of the code which the agent failed to detect.
feedback can be wrong, so improver should check criticism against domain instead of writing it straight into skill, otherwise one reviewer bad taste becomes permanent rule for everybody.
$73M raised? I like Warp but not enough to pay for it. Somebody please make this VC money thing make sense. I can never get the napkin math to work on 90% of things that come through HN. Is it just a "Money Printer Go Brrr' and right connections thing? What am I missing? Is it actually all just fake?
> Engineers complained that their agent made unhelpful comments and produced low-quality output.
Do you mean they found Claude's output, full of smoking-guns and honest caveats which are all load-bearing and genuinely bite -- they found it "low-quality" by default? Wow. Color me surprised. /s
This core problem remains unsolved. The solution presented in the article with Human In The Loop and some skill-magic such as "Write principles, not rules etc." is unsatisfactory because it offers no guarantees whatsoever. I find it difficult to harness agents into deterministic workflows which need to produce reliable outcomes. Agents are great in use cases where humans work with them, but left alone, all bets are off.
The I in AGI stands for "IPO".
This is not at all related to the problematic circular financing stuff that I suppose you're trying to allude to.
https://github.com/nousresearch/hermes-agent
(now I understand why cloudflare, had to?, change the name of their warp)
Most impressive.
Ah, now that's a name I haven't heard in many moons. Looks like they found their niche... editing markdown files?
We do so in a chaotic and unreadable way since unlike Hitler we could not afford editors for "Our Struggle".
Enterprise.
Look at their case studies, this is why organisations pay for Warp.
https://www.warp.dev/enterprise
I think you would be pretty much sued if you faked your testimonials especially in Enterprise.
Do you mean they found Claude's output, full of smoking-guns and honest caveats which are all load-bearing and genuinely bite -- they found it "low-quality" by default? Wow. Color me surprised. /s