And I’m sure there’s no conceivable way an organization as well resourced as Anthropic can separate out feature flags from telemetry. It’s just too complicated! Maybe when we get AGI?
Early stage hands-on involvement in shaping the code base’s architecture is still important if you want to build a product that can scale cleanly as you add more features.
The UX around asking and answering so many questions is awkward.
To work around this, I had claude code build me a questionnaire skill that takes a json file with a flexible schema as input and it then serves up a simple questionnaire web page on a node server where I can read the questions and give my responses either by selecting from preset tags supplied as part of the input or by including a text-based response.
The agent can include references to external images, html files, or mermaid diagrams and the page can render them all inline with the relevant question.
Once I'm done answering, I just save my responses and click a button to kill the server. The agent watching the process sees that it stopped and takes that as a signal to go read the responses from disk.
"We need the source code." No, you want the source code. You want software someone else put their time, effort, and judgement into to be available for you to do whatever you'd like with it without any recompense. The sense of entitlement here is exhausting.
There are plenty of good reasons to choose an an open source tools and sure, the ability to personalize a tool at the source layer can be valuable enough in some instances to justify maintaining a fork manually or with an agent.
Asserting that dev tools must be open source to prioritize a paradigm where users roll the dice on adding features by one-shotting them with an agent and then burning tokens until the end of time to try to keep their forks compatible with upstream changes because plugin APIs are too restrictive doesn't pass muster.
