Last weekend, I did some building. I wanted to test out my own version of @Ari Evergreen ’s loops (and, to be 100% clear, this is the child’s play version of what she’s doing - I need to start by crawling before I walk and then run and she’s already training for the Olympics; go be inspired by her stuff. Seriously.). So I did it on the fly. I got Code (in VS Code) to do the changes and rather than my usual “sharp eye” (that’s what my system calls it, not me), I let it go and do its thing. Then I got it to write a handoff to Desktop, which can also read the system via the Anthropic filespace connector. (At this point, we’re still local branched, nothing has been committed to git). The first thing I found fascinating - I just said to write a handoff so I could get Desktop to do a review. Here’s a folder to put it in. That was it, nothing else from me. Code invited an *adversarial* review (its word). Not only did it rank the attack surfaces it was most concerned about and the reasons why its method of building made those its concerns, it also challenged Desktop to find what it had missed. Its exact words: “don’t take this as truth, the *files* are the truth.” Desktop found something. I provided permission to fix and write. Code reviewed again. There was a question about accuracy. Code had visibility to git and was able to confirm the fix met the mark by confirming ground truth against git history. The build was committed, the work on me to review was minor and there was significantly less hand-holding than there would usually be. The most interesting thing? I could see the fingerprints of my personality all over the conversation between Code and Desktop. The words were all wrong (adversarial - nah, not how I’d say it), but the *spirit* of the exhange from start to finish? Pure Mira. Tell me what I’ve got wrong. Tell me what I’ve missed. Give me the feedback. Don’t take my word for it, check the data. Here’s what I’m saying and here are the receipts - because I can’t help myself, I’m wired that way. Even the response at the end - Code essentially congratulated Desktop for improving the work, confirmed the only possible issue wasn’t one as per git records and committed a build that was improved by the review. No hard feelings, no ego, just celebrating success that the team shipped the best work possible. I’d like to think that’s how I operate.

This is interesting and gives you a perspective of Google's version of what we're doing here. Take a look. I am. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-the-open-knowledge-format-can-improve-data-sharing Just starting to take in what they're putting forth. How can we learn from it? How do we capitalize on it? What do you think? Also, here is an article I found on this, which is worth a glance: https://medium.com/@marc.bara.iniesta/googles-new-format-for-agent-context-a-standard-or-just-a-folder-82fb21d92041