@dotey: Building an Agent Harness itself is no longer valuable—no matter how hard you try, you can't compete with model companies. Once the model upgrades, much of your work becomes obsolete. But building solutions on top of a mature Agent Harness has great potential. MCP only solves the connectivity problem, Skills only solves the domain knowledge problem…

X AI KOLs Timeline News

Summary

The author argues that directly developing an Agent Harness is of little value because model companies will dominate, but building applications in vertical domains on top of mature frameworks still offers significant opportunities. It requires redesigning AI-native workflows, UI/UX, and data organization.

Building an Agent Harness itself is no longer valuable—no matter how hard you try, you can't compete with model companies. Once the model upgrades, much of your work becomes obsolete. But building solutions on top of a mature Agent Harness has great potential. MCP only solves the connectivity problem, Skills only solves the domain knowledge problem. There is still much to address in vertical domains: - Redesign old workflows as AI-native Agent workflows for Agents - Redesign UI and UX interactions for the Human-in-the-Loop parts - Organize high-quality data in vertical domains - And more These are things model companies cannot do and require collaborative efforts. Agents are the future operating system. A few model companies provide models and harnesses, while others build applications on top.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 05/25/26, 04:56 PM

Building an Agent Harness from scratch is no longer worthwhile — no matter how you do it, you can’t outpace the model companies. Every time a model is upgraded, a lot of the work becomes obsolete.

But building solutions on top of a mature Agent Harness? That’s where the real opportunity lies.

MCP only solves the connection problem. Skills only solve the domain knowledge problem.

There‘s still a lot to figure out in vertical domains:

  • Redesigning old workflows to be AI-native Agent workflows.
  • Redesigning UI/UX interactions for the Human-in-the-Loop part.
  • Curating high-quality data for the vertical domain.
  • And more.

These are things the model companies can’t do on their own — they need to be co-built.

Agents are the operating system of the future. A few model companies provide the models and the harness, and everyone else builds applications on top.

Wesley (@imwsl90): Just now someone in the group said the Agent thing is already over.

I basically agree.

Feels like there’s really nothing left to do in vertical Agents 🥶🥶🥶🥶

Similar Articles

@Xudong07452910: This 'Harness Updating Is Not Harness Benefit' is very suitable for those working on Agent Harness. It talks about an easily overlooked problem: updating Harness does not mean you can use it well. Now many Ag…

X AI KOLs Timeline

This post discusses a paper, pointing out that in the self-evolution of Agent systems, updating Harness (writing useful updates) and benefiting from updates (actually using them in subsequent tasks) are two different abilities. The latter is key, and weak models often fail to use the rules.

@Potatoloogs: https://x.com/Potatoloogs/status/2057391224592667051

X AI KOLs Timeline

This article deeply analyzes the concept of Agent Harness, which is the engineering infrastructure wrapped around an LLM, including 12 components such as orchestration loops, tool calling, memory systems, context management, etc. The article cites practices from companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and LangChain, arguing for the critical role of the harness in production-grade AI agents.

@Yuancheng: ➤ New ideas and practices for Agent Harness are still emerging. Lately I came across **OpenSquilla**, an open-source, locally-hosted AI Agent. ① It features intelligent model routing—for the same task, token cost is 60-80% less than OpenClaw …

X AI KOLs Timeline

OpenSquilla is an open-source, locally-hosted AI Agent with intelligent model routing that allocates tasks among different models to save token costs, and introduces the MetaSkill mechanism to let the Agent automatically organize skills.

@shao__meng: Why do Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Aider, and Cline exhibit different agent behaviors despite potentially sharing the same underlying models? @addyosmani argues: It's due to the "shell" above the model — the Harness, which includes "prompts, ...

X AI KOLs Timeline

The article discusses how Addy Osmani argues that the performance difference between AI coding agents like Claude Code, Cursor, and Cline stems from their 'Harness'—the layer of prompts, tools, and constraints around the model—rather than the underlying model itself. It details best practices for harness engineering, including hooks, sandboxing, and context management, to bridge the gap between model capability and actual agent performance.