Simon WillisonModify

2026-02-08 10:25:53

People on the orange site are laughing at this, assuming it's just an ad and that there's nothing to it. Vulnerability researchers I talk to do not think this is a joke. As an erstwhile vuln researcher myself: do not bet against LLMs on this.

Axios: Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 uncovers 500 zero-day flaws in open-source

I think vulnerability research might be THE MOST LLM-amenable software engineering problem. Pattern-driven. Huge corpus of operational public patterns. Closed loops. Forward progress from stimulus/response tooling. Search problems.

Vulnerability research outcomes are in THE MODEL CARDS for frontier labs. Those companies have so much money they're literally distorting the economy. Money buys vuln research outcomes. Why would you think they were faking any of this?

— Thomas Ptacek

Tags: thomas-ptacek, anthropic, claude, security, generative-ai, ai, llms, open-source

2026-02-08 07:57:57

Vouch

He says:

The idea is simple: Unvouched users can't contribute to your projects. Very bad users can be explicitly "denounced", effectively blocked. Users are vouched or denounced by contributors via GitHub issue or discussion comments or via the CLI.

Integration into GitHub is as simple as adopting the published GitHub actions. Done. Additionally, the system itself is generic to forges and not tied to GitHub in any way.

Who and how someone is vouched or denounced is up to the project. I'm not the value police for the world. Decide for yourself what works for your project and your community.

Tags: open-source, ai, github-actions, generative-ai, mitchell-hashimoto, ai-ethics

2026-02-08 07:10:33

Claude: Speed up responses with fast mode

Opus is usually $5/million input and $25/million output. The new fast mode is $30/million input and $150/million output!

There's a 50% discount until the end of February 16th, so only a 3x multiple (!) before then.

How much faster is it? The linked documentation doesn't say, but on Twitter Claude say:

Our teams have been building with a 2.5x-faster version of Claude Opus 4.6.

We’re now making it available as an early experiment via Claude Code and our API.

Claude Opus 4.5 had a context limit of 200,000 tokens. 4.6 has an option to increase that to 1,000,000 at 2x the input price ($10/m) and 1.5x the output price ($37.50/m) once your input exceeds 200,000 tokens. These multiples hold for fast mode too, so after Feb 16th you'll be able to pay a hefty $60/m input and $225/m output for Anthropic's fastest best model.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, llm-pricing, claude-code

2026-02-08 05:31:44

I am having more fun programming than I ever have, because so many more of the programs I wish I could find the time to write actually exist. I wish I could share this joy with the people who are fearful about the changes agents are bringing. The fear itself I understand, I have fear more broadly about what the end-game is for intelligence on tap in our society. But in the limited domain of writing computer programs these tools have brought so much exploration and joy to my work.

— David Crawshaw, Eight more months of agents

Tags: coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, ai, llms

2026-02-07 23:40:48

Last week I hinted at a demo I had seen from a team implementing what Dan Shapiro called the Dark Factory level of AI adoption, where no human even looks at the code the coding agents are producing. That team was part of StrongDM, and they've just shared the first public description of how they are working in Software Factories and the Agentic Moment:

We built a Software Factory: non-interactive development where specs + scenarios drive agents that write code, run harnesses, and converge without human review. [...]

In kōan or mantra form:

• Why am I doing this? (implied: the model should be doing this instead)

In rule form:

• Code must not be written by humans
• Code must not be reviewed by humans

Finally, in practical form:

• If you haven't spent at least $1,000 on tokens today per human engineer, your software factory has room for improvement

I think the most interesting of these, without a doubt, is "Code must not be reviewed by humans". How could that possibly be a sensible strategy when we all know how prone LLMs are to making inhuman mistakes?

I've seen many developers recently acknowledge the November 2025 inflection point, where Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 appeared to turn the corner on how reliably a coding agent could follow instructions and take on complex coding tasks. StrongDM's AI team was founded in July 2025 based on an earlier inflection point relating to Claude Sonnet 3.5:

The catalyst was a transition observed in late 2024: with the second revision of Claude 3.5 (October 2024), long-horizon agentic coding workflows began to compound correctness rather than error.

By December of 2024, the model's long-horizon coding performance was unmistakable via Cursor's YOLO mode.

Their new team started with the rule "no hand-coded software" - radical for July 2025, but something I'm seeing significant numbers of experienced developers start to adopt as of January 2026.

They quickly ran into the obvious problem: if you're not writing anything by hand, how do you ensure that the code actually works? Having the agents write tests only helps if they don't cheat and assert true.

This feels like the most consequential question in software development right now: how can you prove that software you are producing works if both the implementation and the tests are being written for you by coding agents?

StrongDM's answer was inspired by Scenario testing (Cem Kaner, 2003). As StrongDM describe it:

We repurposed the word scenario to represent an end-to-end "user story", often stored outside the codebase (similar to a "holdout" set in model training), which could be intuitively understood and flexibly validated by an LLM.

Because much of the software we grow itself has an agentic component, we transitioned from boolean definitions of success ("the test suite is green") to a probabilistic and empirical one. We use the term satisfaction to quantify this validation: of all the observed trajectories through all the scenarios, what fraction of them likely satisfy the user?

That idea of treating scenarios as holdout sets - used to evaluate the software but not stored where the coding agents can see them - is fascinating. It imitates aggressive testing by an external QA team - an expensive but highly effective way of ensuring quality in traditional software.

Which leads us to StrongDM's concept of a Digital Twin Universe - the part of the demo I saw that made the strongest impression on me.

The software they were building helped manage user permissions across a suite of connected services. This in itself was notable - security software is the last thing you would expect to be built using unreviewed LLM code!

[The Digital Twin Universe is] behavioral clones of the third-party services our software depends on. We built twins of Okta, Jira, Slack, Google Docs, Google Drive, and Google Sheets, replicating their APIs, edge cases, and observable behaviors.

With the DTU, we can validate at volumes and rates far exceeding production limits. We can test failure modes that would be dangerous or impossible against live services. We can run thousands of scenarios per hour without hitting rate limits, triggering abuse detection, or accumulating API costs.

How do you clone the important parts of Okta, Jira, Slack and more? With coding agents!

As I understood it the trick was effectively to dump the full public API documentation of one of those services into their agent harness and have it build an imitation of that API, as a self-contained Go binary. They could then have it build a simplified UI over the top to help complete the simulation.

With their own, independent clones of those services - free from rate-limits or usage quotas - their army of simulated testers could go wild. Their scenario tests became scripts for agents to constantly execute against the new systems as they were being built.

This screenshot of their Slack twin also helps illustrate how the testing process works, showing a stream of simulated Okta users who are about to need access to different simulated systems.

This ability to quickly spin up a useful clone of a subset of Slack helps demonstrate how disruptive this new generation of coding agent tools can be:

Creating a high fidelity clone of a significant SaaS application was always possible, but never economically feasible. Generations of engineers may have wanted a full in-memory replica of their CRM to test against, but self-censored the proposal to build it.

The techniques page is worth a look too. In addition to the Digital Twin Universe they introduce terms like Gene Transfusion for having agents extract patterns from existing systems and reuse them elsewhere, Semports for directly porting code from one language to another and Pyramid Summaries for providing multiple levels of summary such that an agent can enumerate the short ones quickly and zoom in on more detailed information as it is needed.

StrongDM AI also released some software - in an appropriately unconventional manner.

github.com/strongdm/attractor is Attractor, the non-interactive coding agent at the heart of their software factory. Except the repo itself contains no code at all - just three markdown files describing the spec for the software in meticulous detail, and a note in the README that you should feed those specs into your coding agent of choice!

github.com/strongdm/cxdb is a more traditional release, with 16,000 lines of Rust, 9,500 of Go and 6,700 of TypeScript. This is their "AI Context Store" - a system for storing conversation histories and tool outputs in an immutable DAG.

It's similar to my LLM tool's SQLite logging mechanism but a whole lot more sophisticated. I may have to gene transfuse some ideas out of this one!

A glimpse of the future?

I visited the StrongDM AI team back in October as part of a small group of invited guests.

The three person team of Justin McCarthy, Jay Taylor and Navan Chauhan had formed just three months earlier, and they already had working demos of their coding agent harness, their Digital Twin Universe clones of half a dozen services and a swarm of simulated test agents running through scenarios. And this was prior to the Opus 4.5/GPT 5.2 releases that made agentic coding significantly more reliable a month after those demos.

It felt like a glimpse of one potential future of software development, where software engineers move from building the code to building and then semi-monitoring the systems that build the code. The Dark Factory.

Wait, $1,000/day per engineer?

I glossed over this detail in my first published version of this post, but it deserves some serious attention.

If these patterns really do add $20,000/month per engineer to your budget they're far less interesting to me. At that point this becomes more of a business model exercise: can you create a profitable enough line of products that you can afford the enormous overhead of developing software in this way?

Building sustainable software businesses also looks very different when any competitor can potentially clone your newest features with a few hours of coding agent work.

I hope these patterns can be put into play with a much lower spend. I've personally found the $200/month Claude Max plan gives me plenty of space to experiment with different agent patterns, but I'm also not running a swarm of QA testers 24/7!

I think there's a lot to learn from StrongDM even for teams and individuals who aren't going to burn thousands of dollars on token costs. I'm particularly invested in the question of what it takes to have agents prove that their code works without needing to review every line of code they produce.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, ai-assisted-programming, coding-agents, parallel-agents

2026-02-07 07:41:31

I don't know why this week became the tipping point, but nearly every software engineer I've talked to is experiencing some degree of mental health crisis.

[...] Many people assuming I meant job loss anxiety but that's just one presentation. I'm seeing near-manic episodes triggered by watching software shift from scarce to abundant. Compulsive behaviors around agent usage. Dissociative awe at the temporal compression of change. It's not fear necessarily just the cognitive overload from living in an inflection point.

— Tom Dale

Tags: ai-ethics, careers, coding-agents, generative-ai, ai, llms