@KakaluoteW45042: Building your own agent harness isn't that mysterious: the minimal version has three parts—tool schema validation, structured output parsing, and failure retries. But the real value is in debuggability: when agent behavior is wrong, you can trace it through logs to locate whether it's a prompt, tool return, or retry logic issue. Black-box …
Summary
Building your own AI agent toolkit isn't complex; the minimal version includes tool schema validation, structured output parsing, and failure retries, but its true value lies in debuggability, allowing you to pinpoint issues through logs.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/12/26, 04:47 AM
Building your own agent harness isn’t that mystical: the minimal version consists of just three core components — tool schema validation, structured output parsing, and failure retry logic.
But the real value lies in debuggability: when an agent behaves unexpectedly, you can trace through logs to pinpoint whether the issue stems from the prompt, tool response, or retry logic. Opaque SDKs leave you troubleshooting based on intuition, tuning prompts through trial and error.
Similar Articles
@yibie: Every programmer should hand-write an agent. It only takes about 50 lines of code, it's fun, and it will surprise you. But to get the most out of it, do these two things: First, write it from scratch. Open a blank text file and type every line yourself. Don't use any AI, not even autocomplete. Second, rely only on the standard library documentation…
This article encourages programmers to manually write a simple AI agent (around 50 lines of code) to deepen their understanding of how agents work, and suggests writing it from scratch while relying only on standard library and API documentation.
@geekbb: Auto-optimization tool for Agent harness. It takes over the heavy lifting of harness optimization: you provide a benchmark command and a target repository, and it automatically generates proposals, runs evaluations, records results, keeps the best, discards the rest, and automatically improves the agent's prompts, configurations, and source code. https…
autoharness is an automated agent harness optimization tool that automatically generates proposals and runs evaluations based on benchmark commands to improve an agent's prompts, configurations, and source code. It supports Codex and Claude.
@XAMTO_AI: Want to build a production-grade Agent Harness from scratch? Stop dreaming. If you think picking any random framework will do the job, you'll crash and burn. The truth is this is not something that a "framework choice" can handle. Behind it are 15 hardcore responsibilities you can't avoid: each must be a worker that is installable, versionable, and language-switchable...
The article argues that production agent harnesses should not be monolithic frameworks but rather a stack of independent, replaceable workers connected by a shared trigger primitive, outlining 15 core responsibilities and how the iii engine implements this approach.
"Your agent's failures are your regression suite" is great advice. Building eval datasets by hand isn't. Here's what I do instead.
作者分享了一套基于真实会话失败用例构建 AI agent 回归测试集的流程：先手动标注 traces，再按失败类型分组、写廉价检查项，并用 Kitaru 的 MCP server 与重放机制加速评测集的维护。
@antiAIvo: How to Handwrite an Agent from Scratch? I Put Together an Agent Tutorial in 18 Parts Coding agents like Claude Code and Codex are really just a loop at their core: The model requests tools, code executes, the result goes back into the conversation, until the model stops requesting This tutorial starts from 100 lines of code and builds up layer by layer in Python:...
Shared a complete 18-part handwritten Agent tutorial, starting from 100 lines of Python and progressively building tool calling, permissions, context management, Skills, chat platform integrations, scheduled tasks, MCP, sub-Agents, planning, and memory. Each lesson also compares how mainstream Agents like Claude Code, Codex, Grok Bot, and DeepSeek Harness approach the same problems. The biggest takeaway: mainstream products mostly diverge on one question — should the security layer be handled by prompts or by code?