There was no working, prominent Discord link. Update the stale invite code
(WeMU5AGxD → G8Gk5j3uXr) everywhere it appeared (README, docs, blog, landing,
SECURITY, issue templates, contrib), and add the link prominently: the site
nav and footer includes (so it shows on every landing/docs/blog page), a
Discord badge + a Community line in the README, and a "Join Discord" button on
the landing.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
The framework's depth is strong but the on-ramp is the adoption gap, and the
architect queue had filled entirely with internal hardening. Steer the
architect to weight the developer on-ramp/DX (first-agent tutorial,
discoverable examples, docs wayfinding, install friction, debugging) at least
as highly as internal work — a developer succeeding on their first agent
matters more than another conformance/observability increment. Adoption issues
filed: #3561-#3565.
Also add loop-release.yml: a daily patch release that tags v6.MINOR.PATCH+1
when master has new commits (pushed with the PAT so goreleaser fires), so the
installable framework tracks the loop's daily improvements instead of lapsing.
Minor/major bumps stay with the human.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Rename the autonomous-loop workflows so the Actions list maps to the
long-running-agent harness pattern (planner → generator → evaluator):
architecture-review.yml -> loop-architect.yml "Loop: Architect (Planner)"
continuous-improvement.yml -> loop-builder.yml "Loop: Builder (Generator)"
devrel-review.yml -> loop-devrel.yml "Loop: DevRel"
harness-triage.yml -> loop-triage.yml "Loop: Triage (Evaluator feedback)"
harness.yml stays the shared Evaluator/CI gate (triage still matches it by the
"Harness (E2E)" name). Document the pipeline + role mapping in
CONTINUOUS_IMPROVEMENT.md, and point to it from CONTRIBUTING so the development
process is discoverable. No behavior change — schedules, gates, and required
checks are unaffected.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Close the loop's feedback path: when the live provider-conformance harness
fails, harness-triage.yml dispatches Codex to triage the failing run — read
logs, root-cause, dedupe against open issues, and file scoped codex/enhancement
issues that the hourly increment loop then fixes and the next harness run
verifies. Transient flakes are ignored; breaking/architectural fixes are
escalated as needs-human rather than auto-built. No human in the middle short
of a genuine judgment call. Documented in CONTINUOUS_IMPROVEMENT.md.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Match the real-model conformance cadence to the dev/loop velocity so live
regressions and provider drift surface within the hour instead of up to 24h.
The mock harness already runs on every push/PR; this only changes the live
(credentialed) schedule.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* atlascloud: env-selectable chat model; run conformance on a stronger model
The daily provider-conformance harness fails 4/5 harnesses on Atlas Cloud —
its default chat model answers agent/tool-use conformance prompts
conversationally instead of performing the task. Atlas is currently the only
provider with a key configured, so the whole live run is red.
Make the Atlas Cloud provider honor an ATLASCLOUD_MODEL env override (falling
back to the existing default), and set it in the harness workflow to a
stronger tool-use model (Qwen3, overridable via an Actions variable). No
change to the default for normal use.
* atlascloud: use minimaxai/minimax-m3 for conformance model
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* blog+docs: drop the word "bet" from the tRPC-Agent-Go comparison
Reword "two bets" / "opposite bet" / "the bet is" to approaches / premise /
principle across blog/32 and the comparison guide.
* blog: expand /blog/32 into a field guide on agent frameworks
Roughly double the length with deeper context: the first wave (LangChain &
co.), the two layers of a harness (intra-agent vs operational), loop
engineering and the move to scheduled/looping/work-performing agents, a
survey of where the frameworks are going (LangGraph, CrewAI, AutoGen, ADK,
tRPC-Agent-Go), then Go Micro's "an agent is a service" position, the honest
tRPC-Agent-Go contrast, and MCP/A2A interop. Drops the word "bet" throughout.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add a fair, honest positioning piece on the architectural fork with
tRPC-Agent-Go (an agent SDK alongside your services / graph DSL) vs Go Micro
(one runtime where an agent is a service, every endpoint a tool, durable
flows not a graph DSL). New blog post /blog/32 + a parallel section in the
existing comparison guide; honest about where tRPC-Agent-Go is ahead
(eval, self-evolution, RAG) and that they interoperate over MCP/A2A.
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Codex