3 ms·
> I suspect these frameworks/patterns just fill up the context with unecessary junk. That's exactly the point. Agents have their own context. Thus, you try to
by epolanski 10mo ago
> I suspect these frameworks/patterns just fill up the context with unecessary junk.
That's exactly the point. Agents have their own context.
Thus, you try to leverage them by combining ad-hoc instructions for repetitive tasks (such as reviewing code or running a test checklist) and not polluting your conversation/context.
- cobolexpert 10mo agoAh do you mean sub-agents? I do understand that if I summon a sub-agent and give it e.g. code reviewing instructions, it will not fill up the context of the main conversation. But my point is that giving the sub-agent the instruction "review this code as if you were a staff engineer" (literally those words) should cover most use cases (but I can't prove this, unfortunately).
- vidarh 10mo agoI do think you're right that you should be cautious about writing too convoluted sub-agents. I'd rather use more of them that are brief and specialized, than try to over-correct on having a single agent try to "remember" too many rules. Not really because the description itself will eat too much context, but because having the sub-agent work for too long will accumulate too much context and dilute your initial instructions anyway.