Comment by sfc32
22 days ago
The multi-LLM approach is a great direction and I like the polished feel of the application. Moving up to a more project managenent approach is welcomed. I will download and give it a go.
One thought - vendors like cursor.ai have the benefit of highly tuned prompts, presumably by programming language, as the result of their user bases. How is it possible to compete with this?
On another note, I have played around with v0 etc, but AFAIK there is no really good UX/UI AI tool that can effectively replace a designer in the way that coding tools are replacing engineers (to a certain extent).
Thanks for giving it a try!
On prompts: We've been competing with Cursor for the last 2 years in the enterprise with Zencoder, and winning nice deals based on quality. At some point, we were very protective of our prompts, but two things happened: -most of the coding vendors' prompts were leaked, there are repos online that have prompts from a bunch. The moment you allow a custom end-point for LLM, your prompts are sniffable. -agents became better at instruction following, so a lot of prompting changed to "less is more".
So with these two industry trends, we reversed the course: -moved our harness into CLI - this exposes our tips and tricks, but is better for user privacy and for user's ability to tinker the harness. For example, this allows a set-up where no code leaves your perimeter (if you use local harness and "local" model, where "local" means different things for different people) -opened the workflows in Zenflow (they are in markdown and editable)