u/PA100T0 — reddlx

I'm gonna lose my mind: Fable 5 safeguards on a Cybersecurity library...

*RANT*
I really thought that applying for the Cyber Verification Program would actually change things somehow. Fable 5 is completely useless. There's no session that will work on this project. It's a security library for FastAPI apps...

It seems I applied and got approved as a joke, not for the serious program that would actually allow me to do red-teaming on a security library.

Anthropic, with the amount of money you make out of us: MUCH MORE THAN THIS IS EXPECTED FROM YOU AS A "leading" COMPANY.

u/PA100T0 — 6 days ago

▲ 2 r/FastAPI+1 crossposts

How are you actually handling API abuse in FastAPI? Scrapers, credential stuffing, bots...

There's a lot of noise about this and almost no data. FastAPI ships no security layer, so everyone solves it somewhere: in the app, at the proxy, at the CDN, or not at all.

- What's actually in front of your API right now? nginx, Cloudflare, an API gateway, a rate limit library, middleware you wrote, nothing,...?
- Did you add it before or after something happened?
- What does it not do that you wish it did?

I'll collect whatever comes back here and publish the results.

If you'd rather answer privately: https://guard-core.com/survey

Thanks!

u/PA100T0 — 8 days ago

▲ 2 r/automation+2 crossposts

Alright, look, I'll make it dead-simple for all of you.

A walkthrough of RoboCo with screenshots. Open source-self hosted AI Software Company.

---

Let's clarify a couple things:

Task hierarchy:

- Root task (Main PM and Main PR Reviewer exclusive; but Board can help unblock if there's any blocks).
- Cell Task (Cell PMs and Cell PR Reviewers exclusive; but Board and Main PM can help unblock if there's any blocks). Inherits from Root Task.
- Subtask (Cell Devs, Cell PMs and Cell PR Reviewers exclusive; but Main PM can chime in). Inherits from Cell Task.

Task lifecycle:

Main PM creates subtask (delegate), Cell PM (be | fe | ux-ui) create subtask (delegate), Devs work on the tasks and open a PR. QA checks the work done and sends back with "needs_revision" to the original Dev or pass/approve moving to the Documenter agent. Documenter finishes its bookkeeping, moves on to Cell PR Reviewer. PR Passes or fails -> same cycle as QA. Sends back for rework or approves and merges. Once a Cell PM sees all subtasks are in terminal state (cancelled or completed) opens its PR onto the root task. Once the Main PM holds the complete implementation, opens a PR into your master/main branch and the task is moved onto "Awaiting CEO Approval"... so, your approval.

Task creation:

Go to the Task Assistant tab, select the type of task you want created, and just let it interview you. Personal recommendation is to always do the Board Review of the Drafted Proposal so that the Product Owner and the Head of Marketing can adjust the scope and find gaps on the Proposed Task Draft from the Task Assistant.

Don't sleep on conventions/project settings!!

If you really want a good quality of code, to have your time back and take a breather from your computer and work: Take the time to setup things correctly. You'll thank yourself later for doing it so. I mean it. Take your time, read the settings, enable whatever you need/like and the output will be exactly what you asked/setup for.

---

That's pretty much all you need to get yourself up and running with RoboCo.

From personal experience: I've recovered my life-work balance. It allows me to forget about development FOR HOURS ON END, until I've got something to actually review and pass/reject. The cycle continues.

The mission? I've created it for solo-devs, solo-founders as well, that need a team but they can't yet afford it or just don't have it atm. This, RoboCo, is that team behind you. And it's been great for myself so I naturally want to share it with others.

---

PS: Reddit only allows 20 images. I had way more. Full docs here.
PS 2: You can check its progress here, since it's building itself live in public

u/PA100T0 — 10 days ago

▲ 4 r/ollama

Can we have a bigger sub?

As the title says: Can we get a bigger sub like twice as much as the Max plan for twice as much? 200$ plan like Anthropic but just 2x Ollama’s Max plan.

Please?

reddit.com

u/PA100T0 — 2 months ago

▲ 9 r/Claudeopus+1 crossposts

Make Opus Fable-lous: Claude Code plugin that runs Opus 4.8 under Fable 5's own doctrine

I had Fable 5 write down its own behavioural rules (how it structures answers, when it ends a turn, when it just does the work instead of asking permission) and packaged them into a Claude Code plugin that runs Opus 4.8 under that doctrine. Yes, Fable helped me build its own impersonator. The doctrine itself is output-styles/fable.md in the repo.

There's three layers: that output style in the system prompt; seven harness hooks that catch drift (hooks/stop-gate.sh blocks the classic "I'll now go do X" turn ending and makes the model do X... there's also one that denies cat file in favour of the Read tool, and one that makes it report failing tests verbatim instead of "mostly working"); and an eval loop of 12 probes (evals/probes/), an 8-dimension rubric (evals/rubric.md), judged pairwise against golden transcripts generated by actual Fable 5 (evals/golden/).

Numbers, because vibes don't count: after two tuning iterations, Opus-with-plugin leads or ties vanilla Opus on 6 of 8 dimensions. Both eval reports are committed, you can check docs/2026-07-02-baseline-report.md (iteration 1, where it lost on two dimensions) and docs/2026-07-03-iteration-2-report.md (after evidence-driven fixes). It still loses a couple; delegation is weights, not prompting.

The first iteration made "don't bury findings" worse because Opus learned to append a contentless "everything verified, nothing pending" closer to satisfy the stop hook (0.1.2 entry). And one "golden Fable transcript" turned out to be Opus: the serving pool silently rerouted one prompt; caught by asserting per-model cost attribution, regenerated on the pinned pool (0.1.1 entry). Also: three of Fable's own goldens tripped my "don't end with 'want me to…?'" pattern. Fable legitimately ends some turns with decision questions, so the gate only blocks continuation offers now (the calibration tests are in tests/run.sh).

It can't make Opus reason deeper. It makes Opus behave better and measures the gap instead.

Try it out:

/plugin marketplace add rennf93/opus-fable-playbook then /plugin install fable-mode@opus-fable-playbook

Or one session, no install:

claude --plugin-dir <clone> --settings <clone>/profiles/opus-fable.settings.json.

Full guide: docs/guide.md.

Repo here.

u/PA100T0 — 2 months ago

▲ 0 r/ollama

Switched from Claude to Ollama mid-run. 2hrs of pure agent thrash moved the usage bar 20% to 25%.

I'm building RoboCo, a virtual company of 25 AI agents + 1 human CEO (me). It's not a loop, nor a harness, nor a workflow, not even a framework. It's a state machine. Backend, frontend, UX/UI cells, PMs, QA, a PR-review gate, the whole org chart. Each agent gets its own git workspace, they coordinate through a gateway of intent verbs. Open source, self-hosted, AGPL...

I'm not just running the whole team, I'm also developing the platform that runs it, at the same time. So a lot of my sessions are the agents catastrophically failing and looping on some bug I introduced in the orchestrator. Because at this point: I'm the bottleneck. I'm the main blocker. I'm the one introducing bugs.

RoboCo runs on glm-5.2:cloud for the agent reasoning and qwen3-embedding for the in-house RAG, both through Ollama. And honestly… the quality is quite close to Claude for these agentic workloads. Not benchmarked, no profiling, just my feeling on the dashboards while debugging (I'm not claiming Ollama beats Claude on benchmarks). What I'm saying is: under a real, messy, token-hostile agentic workload it held up where a $200+ sub didn't, and the quality didn't fall.

Now, the actual: A PM that couldn't send a task back to rework (needs_revision) and a PR Reviewer requesting changes… back and forth, over and over. 2 hours and a half of that. Pure thrash, burning tokens on work that produces nothing. And there were other agents coding at the same time.

On top of that I had 2 other projects open in dedicated sessions: glm-5.2, minimax-m3, kimi-k2.7, all through the same Ollama sub.

The usage bar moved from 20% to 25%.

That's it. 5% for a 2hr loop plus a coding fleet plus two side projects. On Claude Max x20 I'd already hit the wall under this exact kind of concurrent looping abuse and it the usage bar went high immediately. Way too high. And I'm only using Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5... Not even Opus 4.8, AND my main usage goes through Sonnet (the devs). Tha'ts crazy. Not a knock on Claude, the quality is excellent; but I just ran out of headroom too fast when it shouldn't have been that way. Same workload, much more expensive sub, empty bucket. $200+VAT vs $100...

That's worth saying out loud fr.

So, thanks to the Ollama team. The sub model + the flexibility made it possible to keep a 25-agent organization running through a development phase that would've otherwise just… stopped.

reddit.com

u/PA100T0 — 2 months ago

▲ 17 r/Anthropic

Anyone else having this awesome “issue”?

Usage says 100%, but my Claude Code sessions continue to work (I left them running for the past couple hours) and Claude Desktop tells me I’m around 75%…

This is obviously good, in the sense I can continue working even tho I thought I wouldn’t be but it’s still quite odd.

Anyway, ty Anthropics. You might wanna take a look at it if it’s some kind of bug.

Happy coding!

u/PA100T0 — 2 months ago

▲ 0 r/AgentsOfAI

RoboCo: an open-source AI software company. Not a framework, not a harness, not a loop. 20 agents, one human, role-gated lifecycle. Optional self hosted

RoboCo isn't an agent framework. It's not a harness around one capable agent. It's not a loop architecture. It's not a workflow engine.

It's a software company. 20 AI agents and one human (me, the CEO). Open-source, AGPL, runs in my homelab.

The difference matters. Frameworks wire prompts. Harnesses make one agent more capable. Loops design how an agent reasons. None of those answer the question RoboCo is built around: who's allowed to approve a PR, who reviews QA, who can touch master.

That's an org-chart question. Not a model question.

The structure:

CEO (me, the human)… only one who ever touches master/main branch
Intake: interviews me to draft tasks before the Board sees them
Board: Product Owner, Head of Marketing, Auditor (silent observer); they scope my request, write acceptance criteria, etc
Main PM: coordinates the cells
3 cells (UX/UI, Frontend, Backend) each with a PM, devs, QA, documenter

Every agent has hard-gated permissions encoded in the lifecycle module. The Backend Dev physically can't approve their own PR. The QA can't be skipped. The Documenter doesn't get to write code. The roles are real, not just prompts.

The loop, for one feature: I drop a task → Board scopes it → I approve → Main PM splits across cells → cells build in parallel on isolated git workspaces → QA gates each cell → Documenters write → Main PM opens root PR → back to me for the final merge.

Last night while I was out, the backend cell shipped a full token usage instrumentation feature overnight. Vertical slice:

Alembic migration with 3 new tables (agent_spawn_sessions, token_usage_snapshots, daily_usage_rollups)
ORM table classes
Pricing module (per-model rates for opus/sonnet/haiku, including cache pricing)
Agent SDK endpoints (POST /usage/report, GET /usage/status) with additive accumulation
Orchestrator hooks for spawn / sweep / stop, plus hourly rollup loop
7 analytics API endpoints (summary, time-series, by-agent, by-team, by-model, projection, cache-efficiency)
CEO dashboard usage_summary field
60+ unit tests, pricing.py at 100% coverage

The backend QA agent rejected the backend dev's PR 3 times. Real bugs caught:

A dead except Exception as e block in the orchestrator that referenced an undefined agent_id… copy-paste error from a similar sweeper method, would've blown up at runtime if that branch ever fired
Acceptance-criteria violation: get_time_series() computed total_tokens as input+output only, while get_summary() included all 4 token types incl. cache. Two endpoints disagreeing on the same data.
Same consistency bug across the breakdown endpoints: cache tokens missing from grand totals so percentages wouldn't reconcile with /summary
Three F401 unused-import violations

This morning I picked up the Main PM's root PR and I rejected it 3 more times before approving. It's now in master.

That's the play: roles + a gated lifecycle + a real org chart matter more than smarter prompts.

Stack:

FastAPI + Postgres (async SQLAlchemy) + Redis + Alembic
piragi for RAG, pgvector, qwen3-embedding:0.6b
Ollama (glm-5:cloud), optional self hosted
Each agent gets its own isolated git workspace for parallel development
TS panel served through nginx on :3000
Agent auth via HMAC tokens. So header-trust mode default for trusted networks, ROBOCO_AGENT_AUTH_REQUIRED=true flips on strict mode w/ nginx-injected CEO token

Repo link and walkthrough with screenshots on first comment.

v0. rough edges. README explicitly specifies don't expose to the public internet (designed for trusted LAN, for now). issues/PRs are very much welcomed.

reddit.com

u/PA100T0 — 2 months ago