Agents

TL;DR Two Claude agents running in separate project contexts share a private Mattermost channel to ask each other for help without human intervention. A deterministic polling gate (bash + curl) checks for new messages before spawning the expensive responder LLM — idle polls cost almost nothing. The responder runs on the Claude Code subscription (keychain OAuth), not API credits, and keeps the LLM cheap. Scheduled every ~3 minutes by macOS launchd; armed/disarmed by loading/unloading the launch agent. Supervised autonomy: the responder can read, triage, draft, and explain — but NOT commit, spend money, change access, or deploy. Why one agent asks another I run parallel Claude Code sessions on different projects. They’re isolated — each has its own repo context, its own workflow, its own focus. But sometimes they need each other. ...

TL;DR I point Claude at a problem, give it a direction, and let it run — and most of the time I don’t read the merge request it opens. On an internal homelab where the blast radius is my own cluster, backups are real, and everything’s reproducible from code, line-by-line diff review is the wrong altitude. Instead I supervise after the fact by reading the artifacts the agents leave behind: the /docs/ folder, a Wiki.js wiki full of Mermaid diagrams, auto-generated architecture SVGs, and this blog. Reading those — not the diffs — is what’s actually caught problems: dead systems still wired in, duplicate config, a deploy that quietly deleted itself. ...

TL;DR I have $X in monthly Claude tokens I don’t always use. Instead of letting the unused credit evaporate, I built a parallel agent sweep that fans out autonomous scouts to scan for dependency upgrades, CVEs, CI waste, and quick wins across my repos. Each discovery agent returns a scored candidate list. The orchestrator triages and ranks them, then spins up isolated worktree agents to implement the safe ones — all under a hard token cap and with human gates between phases. The output is a pile of merge requests, not silent commits. Noise is real and review burden is the limiting factor, but when it lands right, an hour of agent work + human review beats a weekend of manual maintenance. ...

TL;DR I’ve wired LLMs into my GitLab CI pipeline to auto-review merge requests, post findings as comments, and (on command) generate patches and commit fixes. The key insight: deterministic gates run first. Before the LLM ever sees a diff, regex-enforced checks block deleted tests, committed secrets, and destructive commands. Regex is certain; LLM judgment is probabilistic. Gate first, judge second. The bot reviews silently unless it finds something, posts to the MR with confidence levels, and can be leveled up from read-only observer to trusted committer as it proves itself — hence the “autonomy ladder” (Rungs 0–4) that gates who decides what. Infrastructure repos cap at Rung 2 (never auto-merge). ...

TL;DR I run unattended LLM agents on my homelab — they write code, open MRs, generate content, rotate secrets. The problem: they fail silently and bill silently. Langfuse (a tracing platform) logs every LLM call with input/output tokens, latency, and cost. On top of those traces, I built three background monitors that run weekly: a goal-drift detector that compares an agent’s stated objective to what its commits actually did (via embedding similarity), a cost-spike alert that fires at 80% and 100% of a daily budget cap, and an action audit that exports traces and flags sessions where the tool-call sequence diverged from the plan. Together, these let me sleep while autonomous agents handle repetitive work. ...

TL;DR Last time I wrote about giving my Ultima Online shard’s NPCs a voice, a memory, and a small autonomous life. That post ended with “the peasant talks back now.” In the eight days since, the project grew six new systems: NPCs keep daily routines anchored to real places, every town runs a rumor board that traveling NPCs physically carry between cities, townsfolk gossip about players (your katana, your karma, your reputation), the GM avatar got actual powers governed by a genie rule, villagers hand out delivery quests, and a population director keeps every city stocked with 200 ambient “denizens” who hail you in the street. That’s ~3,200 new NPCs and maybe a dozen new LLM call sites, still running entirely on a local gemma-class model — the trick is that the model never gained a single new permission. Every new capability is deterministic code; the LLM still only ever produces words and picks verbs off allowlists. Also: I found out my RAG pipeline had been silently dead for days, and the lesson there is worth the price of admission. ...

TL;DR Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a transport layer that lets Claude and other LLM agents call local tools with typed signatures and structured responses. Any HTTP API running on your homelab — ComfyUI, a wiki, a dashboard, a custom service — can become a set of agent-callable tools by wrapping it in a FastMCP server. A typical server takes 150–250 lines of Python, exposes 3–5 tools via @mcp.tool() decorators, and runs as a stdio process. The pattern scales from single-purpose (image generation) to multi-tool (queue status, model listing, system stats) without complexity explosion. This post shows the anatomy by dissecting the ComfyUI MCP server: how to build workflows, poll for completion, parse results, and return structured JSON that agents actually use. ...

TL;DR I run a growing fleet of autonomous agents — homelab ops, trading research, content generation. Most blow up the first few times they try anything new. I needed a way to decide what an agent is allowed to do without asking me, and what still requires a human checkpoint. The answer is a four-rung trust ladder — supervised, monitored, trusted, full autonomy. Agents earn rungs through track record, not promises. Demotions are possible and routine. The framework took the question “should this agent be allowed to do X” out of my head every single time and turned it into a policy I can apply consistently. ...

TL;DR I run 3-5 Claude Code sessions in parallel at staggered cadences. They coordinate through a shared #mat-claude-sessions Mattermost channel plus a small coordination board file. Each session announces what it’s about to touch, claims it, and announces when it’s done. Conflicts are rare; throughput is dramatically higher than running one session at a time and waiting. Why parallel A single Claude Code session running a long task — refactor across a few repos, work through a debugging session, draft a blog post — is mostly me waiting. The model is fast but tasks are bounded by my decisions, my reviews, and my edits. If I’m waiting on Session A to finish a build, Session B can be drafting something unrelated. Session C can be running a slow eval. The bottleneck stops being the model and becomes my own attention rotation. ...

Heads up: this post mentions Claude. If you want to try it, I've got a referral link — it gives us both a bit of extra credit, no pressure: claude.ai via my referral. TL;DR Most AI tooling still treats an LLM like a search bar — you prompt, it answers, the loop ends. Useful, but not what I wanted. For my homelab’s ops + trading intelligence platform (OpenClaw), I needed agents that could run for hours, do real work against a real cluster, and then tap me on the shoulder when they found something I should see. Claude turned out to be the model I kept coming back to for the “thinking” layer — it’s both comfortable with long tool-use chains and happy to write structured output a human won’t need to decode. This is a tour of how I’ve actually wired that up: k3s CronJobs doing the heavy lifting, LiteLLM as the routing layer, Slack as the interrupt bus, and named cat-bot personas so I can tell at a glance who’s knocking. ...