Long-horizon agents keep losing to interactive sessions for me.
I haven’t had much success with Fable or GPT-5.6 Sol at high reasoning. They churn through tokens, take forever, and still get off the rails quickly. That’s with my own harness, loop engineering, and skills I’ve tested extensively.
I get more done staying in the session with Opus, or using 5.6 Luna/Terra at lower reasoning. The feedback loop is tighter and the throughput is much better.
Maybe long-horizon agents work when a team has a backlog of pre-approved tasks and people available to supervise them. For solo engineering, more reasoning and autonomy have not translated into more completed work for me.
@satyanadella The learning loop should outlast any model. Private evals encode what good means. Memory, traces, feedback, and decisions preserve how the company learns. A decoupled orchestration layer lets you swap providers without rebuilding the loop.
That outer system is the meta-harness.
We're building systems that call Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, or Cline and judge results. That outer system is a meta-harness.
The distinction matters because the same skill can improve one model-and-harness setup and make another worse.
https://t.co/1SExlIMXG1
Lots of talk about version control needs with single devs landing 100s of diffs a week (via loop eng). Hard to justify switching for smaller shops but great to have serious competition to push version control vendors
42 is the answer to everything. This is @EntireHQ’s answer to Git in the era of agents: fast, independent, distributed. Mirror your GitHub repos, let your agents clone and pull from the region(s) of your choice, and…we're open sourcing it. 🤖
@cansar This is a great mental model. Do you think correct solution can be determined? The rest seem eval-able. Do you also have a break down of when to use static vs dynamic?