Decorative emojis in headings and lists help me skim documents faster than I'd otherwise be able to.

I'm curious how. I rarely see the emojis line up with the content of the header in a way that makes parsing reading the header any easier.

How?

Same story here, I installed it and ran `gwc auth setup` only to find I needed to install a `gloud` CLI by hand. That led me to this link with install instructions: https://cloud.google.com/sdk/docs/install. Unmistakeable Google DX strikes again.

Made me think of https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator. Would be definitely cool to see it realized even if it would be incredibly impractical (probably).

In theory, comments on Hacker News should advance discussion and meet a certain quality bar lest they be downvoted to make room for the ones that meet the criteria. I am not sure if this ever was true in practice, it certainly seems to have waned in the years I have been a reader of this forum (see one of the many pelican on a bike comments on any AI model release thread), but I'd expect some people still try to vote with this in mind.

Being sarcastic doesn't lower the bar for a comment to meet to not get downvoted, so I wouldn't go thinking people miss the sarcasm without first considering whether the comment adds to the discussion when wondering why a comment is downvoted.

TIL that HA notifications can have associated actions. I have the exact same setup as you, except I only receive the notification and then walk over to the laptop to unblock the agent feeling like a human tool call. This will improve my workflow, thank you.

The notification payload for reference, you will also need a permission input_select (pending/allow/deny) and an automation that triggers upon mobile_app_notification_action:

  notification_payload=$(cat <<EOF
  {
    "message": "$escaped_message",
    "title": "$escaped_title",
    "data": {
      "tag": "$escaped_request_id",
      "group": "claude-code",
      "actions": [
        {
          "action": "CLAUDE_ALLOW",
          "title": " Allow"
        },
        {
          "action": "CLAUDE_DENY",
          "title": " Deny"
        }
      ]
    }
  }
  EOF
  )

Actionable notifications are a bit cumbersome on iOS since you need to long-press the notification for actions, but it does work.

Not the person you replied to, but I'll stress the point that it is not just what you can add that Claude Code doesn't offer, but also what you don't need to add that Claude Code does offer that you don't want.

I dislike many things about Claude Code, but I'll pick subagents as one example. Don't want to use them? Tough luck. (AFAIK, it's been a while since I used CC, maybe it is configurable now or was always and I never discovered that.)

With Pi, I just didn't install an extension for that, which I suspect exists, but I have a choice of never finding out.

You can just put "Never use subagents" in your CLAUDE.md and it will honor it, no?

IME CLAUDE.md rarely gets fully honored. I've left HN comments before about how I had to convert some CLAUDE.md instructions to pre-commit deterministic checks due to how often they were ignored. My guesstimate is that it is about 70 % reliable. That's with Opus 4.5. I've since switched to GPT-5.2 and now GPT-5.3 Codex and use Codex CLI, Pi and OpenCode, not CC, so maybe things have changed with a new system prompt or with the introduction of Opus 4.6.

This is and has always been trivially configurable. Just put `Task` as a disallowed tool.

> running oxfmt without any arguments recursively scans directory tree from the current directory for all .js and .ts files and silently reformats them

I've got to say this is what I would have expected and wanted to happen. I'd say it is wise to not run tools designed to edit files on files you don't have a backup for (like Git) without doing a dry-run or a small scope experiment first.

While I can get behind things such as "use version control," "use backups", etc. this is definitely not what I'd expect from a program run without arguments, especially when it will go and change stuff.

What? The very first page of documentation tells you this. The help screen clearly shows a `--check` argument. This is a formatter and uses the same arguments as many others - in particular Prettier, the most popular formatter in the ecosystem.

How were you not expecting this? Did you not bother to read anything before installing and running this command on a sensitive codebase?

I do usually run new tools from somewhere harmless, like ~/tmp, just in case they do something unexpected.

But most formatters I'm used to absolutely don't do this. For example, `rustfmt` will read input from stdin if no argument is given. It can traverse modules in a project, but it won't start modifying everything under your CWD.

Most unix tools will either wait for some stdin or dump some kind of help when no argument is given. Hell, according to this tool's docs, even `prettier` seems to expect an argument:

    > Running oxfmt without arguments formats the current directory (*equivalent to prettier --write .*)

I'm not familiar with prettier, so I may be wrong, but from the above, I understand that prettier doesn't start rewriting files if no argument is given?

Looking up prettier's docs, they have this to say:

    > --write
    This rewrites all processed files in place. *This is comparable to the eslint --fix* workflow.

So eslint also doesn't automatically overwrite everything?

So yeah, I can't say this is expected behaviour, even if it's documented.

a more related tool would be prettier, which also has a --write option

I also built the equivalent of OpenClaw myself sometime when it was still called Clawdbot and I'm confused how LLMs can be both heralds of the era of personal apps and everyone at the same time be using the same vibe coded personal LLM assistant someone else made, much less it being worth an OpenAI acquisition. I agree building one yourself is very fun.

Just this morning I have run across an even narrower case of how AGENTS.md (in this case with GPT-5.3 Codex) can be completely ignored even if filled with explicit instructions.

I have a line there that says Codex should never use Node APIs where Bun APIs exist for the same thing. Routinely, Claude Code and now Codex would ignore this.

I just replaced that rule with a TypeScript-compiler-powered AST based deterministic rule. Now the agent can attempt to commit code with banned Node API usage and the pre-commit script will fail, so it is forced to get it right.

I've found myself migrating more and more of my AGENTS.md instructions to compiler-based checks like these - where possible. I feel as though this shouldn't be needed if the models were good, but it seems to be and I guess the deterministic nature of these checks is better than relying on the LLM's questionable respect of the rules.

Not that much different from humans.

We have pre-commit hooks to prevent people doing the wrong thing. We have all sorts of guardrails to help people.

And the “modern” approach when someone does something wrong is not to blame the person, but to ask “how did the system allow this mistake? What guardrails are missing?”

I wonder if some of these could be embedded in the write tool calls?

I'm disappointed that even Signal does this when asking you for access to your contacts.