A shared inference broker for local agents
One of the more interesting problems I’m working through in my coding agent app is scheduling.
Lynn Cole / Writing
Essays, thoughts, and technical notes.
One of the more interesting problems I’m working through in my coding agent app is scheduling.
Inference volume can rise because useful work is happening—or because a project is falling apart.
Python once felt like a doctrine of disciplined predictability. An architectural failure got me thinking about explicit contracts and where rigidity belongs.
We have heard the vibe-coding argument before—in digital art, visual programming, web design, music and animation. Lowering the barrier changes who gets to try.
Agentic browsing should preserve the browser’s security boundaries. Extracting passwords, cookies and session state into model context changes the whole risk.
The velocity AI creates in coding is interesting because it is not nearly as uniform as people assume.
CodeCharge’s global, layout and data views made a memorable model for generating applications. I miss that way of seeing the work.
Documentation becomes an instruction surface when agents read it. Borrowing old code can accidentally bring an obsolete architecture back to life.
Idle workers perform tasks while a device is unused, yield when the human returns, and resume where they left off.
Thinking about ends, means, subjects and objects changes how you design agentic systems. State and continuity define an architectural boundary worth guarding.
Personas can encode beliefs and boundaries without turning repository instructions into a tax code. Instruction mass changes how agents work.
Commit insertions and deletions can reveal churn, unfinished work or oversized commits. I look for patterns rather than treating volume as achievement.