- Gemini 2.5 Pro is great for the price - V3 is AMAZING for an inexpensive, open-source, non-reasoning model - Grok is not that great - O1-Pro was the worse for this task in terms of cost and efficacy.

As someone who has done a lot of work with agentic coding I am not sure specialized agents are the best solution. I think standardizing knowledge packs would be better that any agent can read to understand a domain or library is more useful. In particular this allows for an agent to know multiple domains at the same time.

Basically knowledge packs could be specified in each npm package.json or similar.

And we should view a knowledge pack as just a cache in a way. Because agents these days are capable of discovering that knowledge themselves, via web browsing and running tests, it is just costly to do so on every agent run or for every library they don't know.

I sort of view specialized agents as akin to micro services, great if you have perfect domain decomposition, but likely to introduce artificial barriers and become inconvenient as the problem domain shifts from the original decomposition design.

I guess I should write this up as blogpost or something similar.

EDIT: Newly written blog post here: https://benhouston3d.com/blog/crafting-readmes-for-ai

The statement

>The current market doesn’t value those skills particularly highly, but instead prioritizes a different set of skills: working in the details, pushing pace, and navigating the technology transition to foundational models / LLMs.

depends on the assumption that technology must "transition" to "foundational models / LLMs". The author doesn't seem to interrogate this assumption. In fact, most of the career malaise I've seen in my work is based on the assumption that, for one reason or another, technologists "must transition" to this new world of LLMs. I wish people would start by interrogating this bizarre backwards assumption (ie., - damn the end product! Damn the users! It must contain AI!) before framing career discussions around it.

However,

>decision-makers can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent

is unfortunately painfully true.

"But on the negative side, stoicism’s Providential claim that everything in the universe is already perfect and that things which seem bad or unjust are secretly good underneath (a claim Christianity borrowed from Stoicism) can be used to justify the idea that the rich and powerful are meant to be rich and powerful, that the poor and downtrodden are meant to be poor and downtrodden, and that even the worst actions are actually good in an ineffable and eternal way"

I didn't understand these repeated digs at Christianity as having been borrowed from the Stoics. For one, that all bad things are actually good is not a tenet of Christianity and is not in the Bible. Perhaps some Christians taught this, but you can find a person claiming Christ who teaches absolutely anything you can think of. Such is the nature of things that are popular.

I can only assume the author is referring to this section from Romans 8:28 (NIV) "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."

If you fly through too quickly you could reach the Stoic claim, but there are a few key differences.

1. It says "God works for the good" in all things, but not that all those things are good in essence.

2. This is a promise only to those who love God, not automatically extended to all people or things.

Finally, I'll note that the entire Old Testament predates the Stoics, and is the foundation for Christian thinking about God's will and plan for the universe.