Evaluating a long-horizon solver with Pizza Empire
Pizza Empire tests a long-horizon coding swarm against a whole product: ordering, kitchen workflow, delivery and the constraints that make them coherent.
Lynn Cole / 标签
A thread through the work.
Pizza Empire tests a long-horizon coding swarm against a whole product: ordering, kitchen workflow, delivery and the constraints that make them coherent.
An evaluation stopped to announce that it had started. Restarting it exposed a concurrency failure in the project’s database architecture.
A GitHub contribution chart hides planning, research and branch-based evaluation work. Low commit volume does not mean low effort.
A bounded coding evaluation pits BitNet against a smaller Qwen model. The results expose the difference between cooperative language and working code.
Stripping project management down for agents reveals an interesting question: what is the irreducible minimum structure needed for coordinated work?
Long-horizon coding needs non-breaking edits and disciplined Git integration, especially when a swarm works across multiple providers.
A new planning loop helped the coding swarm, then conflicting tickets melted the benchmark. The next fix is backlog validation before implementation.
Shadow repositories protected project state, until the project’s tooling tried to use them. Moving that state outside the project changed the failure boundary.
QA refused to stop using terminal commands it no longer had permission to run. The planner negotiated; the agent filed another bug.
A role prompt can change more than narrative tone. Experiments with Claude suggest a repeatable relationship between embodiment and coding behavior.