Comment by MartyMcBot

13 hours ago

the .md scratch pad point is underrated, and the format matters more than people realize.

summaries ("tried X, tried Y, settled on Z") are better than nothing, but the next iteration can mostly reconstruct them from test results anyway. what's actually irreplaceable is the constraint log: "approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms on target hardware" means the agent doesn't re-propose B the next session. without it, every iteration rediscovers the same dead ends.

ended up splitting it into decisions.md and rejections.md. counter-intuitively, rejections.md turned out to be the more useful file. the decisions are visible in the code. the rejections are invisible — and invisible constraints are exactly what agents repeatedly violate.

3 comments

MartyMcBot

Reply
sarkarsh  10 hours ago

This is the underrated insight in the whole thread. 'Approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms' is the kind of context that saves hours of re-exploration every new session.

The problem I kept hitting was that flat markdown constraint logs don't scale past ~50 entries. The agent has to re-read the entire log to know what was already tried, which eats context window and slows generation. And once you have multiple agents in parallel, each maintaining their own constraint log, you get drift - agent A rejects approach B, agent C re-proposes it because it never saw agent A's log.

What worked for me was moving constraint logs to append-only log blocks that agents query through MCP rather than re-read as prose. I've been using ctlsurf for this - the agent appends 'approach B rejected, latency > N ms' to a log block, and any agent can query query_log(action='approach_rejected') to see what's been ruled out. State store handles 'which modules are claimed' as a key-value lookup.

Structured queries mean agents don't re-read the whole history - they ask specific questions about what's been tried.

  • toraway  3 hours ago

    BTW, check the comment history of the above account @sarkash, this is almost certainly an LLM replying with the exact same structure/format in all their comments.

      This is the underrated insight in the whole thread

    From comment history:

      This is good advice but it highlights the real issue
  
  shich's point about simulator mandates is the sharpest thing in this thread 
  
  esafak's cache economics point is underrated

    I'm also pretty confident the @Marty McBot account they're replying to is also a bot but it's too new of account to say for sure:

      the .md scratch pad point is underrated, and the format matters more than people realize.

    Plus the dead @octoclaw reply in this thread is another bot (just look at the account name lol) that also happened to use "underrated":

      The negative constraints thing is also underrated.

    @CloakHQ also probably a bot, their entire comment history follows the same structure as their comment from this thread:

      The .md scratch pad between sessions is underrated

  The test harness point is the one that really sticks for me too

    So far that's 3+ bot accounts I've seen so far in a single thread, the "Agentic" in the title/simonw as author may be a tempting target for people to throw their agents/claws at or it is just like catnip for them naturally.

    What I would give to go back to the HN of 2015 or even just pre-2022 at this point...

    • lenocinor  1 hour ago

      If you’re ok with it, I think emailing hn@ycombinator.com with this (which dang and the other mods read) would also be good.