both points to the same outcome: plan mode within harness is dead.

Only because the harness’ current plan mode is too limited.

not yet, but will be included in the distributed version

Hi HN, this Monk from Antigma Labs, a lot of recent agent/harness projects lean toward "everything is a plugin". For the surface, I agree. Our take is that it stops being right at the agent core.

The interface is cheap to verify: you look at it and you know. The agent core (compaction, scheduling, loop heuristics) is not. Whether a change there made the agent a bit worse at multi-file refactors only shows up in eval sweeps across models and seeds. An in-process plugin API over that layer freezes it right where it needs to evolve.

So we borrowed from Unix pipes: plugin the surface, protect the plugged. The engine runs as a daemon (ante serve) and talks over a typed message stream. Clients send operations (prompts, approvals, interrupts); the engine emits events (tokens, diffs, tool progress). The terminal UI you get when you run ante is just one client of that stream.

Some of the examples:

examples/mini-tui: a one-file Rust TUI

ante-acp: Agent Client Protocol adapter for Zed and JetBrains (work in progress; no session resume yet)

ante-gateway: Slack and Discord bot, one isolated session per thread

Love to hear more about your thoughts on the future of agent architecture

the point is you can redirect all the telemetry to your own exporter with nothing leaves your machine and all the benefits.

it can be opt-out, opt-in, but the telemetry needs to be there to actually improve the agent.

it is more like an actual harness with a managed and pinned llama the control is inverse.

Harness is compute and Model is data

there are so much content and valuable stuff in the github repo you can pretty much recreated with your own agent.

generally the challenge now is that 1. how to deal with PR spams by AI bots 2. how to make the project sustainable especially when one has no distribution. when anyone can insta remix and re-package and re-sell your hard work. For knowledge sharing open source it is ok, but if you are serious about what you built, this is question needs to be answered first before make it a true community effort.

I have bad news for you. No matter what you do here it is probably not sustainable. Competing commercially with people who have so much more resources and ability to build is not sustainable. If it's open source you need adoption, and shouldn't care if people want to steal and remix your work as that will drive more adoption.

But from a fellow engineer's perspective we don't need another commercial solution in this space. Every major tech vendor is working on harnesses, and we will get ones that will run circles around yours for free. The open source ones that get popular will have mit/freebsd/etc permissive licenses. (or no one will adopt them) But coming at it from the angle you are indicates you haven't reasoned well about this. Please don't hurt yourself and those around you by starting a startup on this idea.

there are still many bad players in the industry, i wouldn't mind sharing it with trusted group. But I am not yet strong enough with deal and handle all those yet.

called out the most asked questions - where is the source - telemetry opt-in/opt-out in README of https://github.com/AntigmaLabs/ante