Shell scripts are the highest-ROI layer under your AI skills
The glamorous layer is the agent. The load-bearing one is the boring shell script underneath — and that's where most of your reliability actually lives.
Search for a command to run...
The glamorous layer is the agent. The load-bearing one is the boring shell script underneath — and that's where most of your reliability actually lives.
The prompt is only about 10% of what your LLM actually sees. Most of the other 90% is context you assemble — and when your data has structure, you should build it with code, not another LLM call.
Cadences that surface what's due, habits that flag a slipping streak, and a live HUD that watches the vault — and it ships without a single background cron. SMRITI v2.1.

I'm building an open-source system to interrogate the AI-research firehose — RAG now, a multi-agent researcher by the end, in public over five parts. Part 1 is the foundation: the architecture, the ingestion, and the eval bug that would have shipped meaningless numbers.
A sub-agent that writes to your system will tell you it succeeded. It's reporting what it intended to do, not what actually landed — and the gap is where silent data corruption lives.
You can plan a day around what you can do, or around what you can decide. Until recently those were the same plan, so it never mattered which you meant. Parallel sub-agents pull them apart — and the i
When a team sets out to add AI to something, the first real argument is usually about the model. Which provider, which version, this one or the one shipping next month. It feels like the decision ever
When you build on top of a language model, routing every decision to the model is the path of least resistance. One interface, one prompt, one place to add logic. It works beautifully in a demo. Then
Six weeks into running AI-assisted architect code reviews, I did something I should have done earlier: I asked the team directly. I'd been running a pipeline that scanned pull requests, generated arch