u/riley_kim

I travelled a lot when I was really young, and never really learned how to organically make friends.
I remember in grade 6 I got so tired of relationships feeling so difficult I learned the mbti, observed and basically “learned” how humans do relationships, and how I should present myself if I want a certain relationship.

Fast forward, now I’m in my thirties and I’m finally learning that I’ve become so good at reading people and making friends/relationships that way. But the closer I get to someone, I either end up breaking that friendship/relationship off, or back out cuz I simply don’t have any data about how to act in that case. And I’m too old and tired to do the whole observe and act thing. I think I want genuine relationships now.

I’ve been getting therapy, and my therapist has been saying focus on my feelings, but I’m still not sure which feelings I should focus on cuz honestly the strongest feelings lead me to isolate.

I recently met a person I felt strangely really connected to and basically wanted to get closer to, but because I have no idea how to do so, I am watching that relationship wither away. And it’s making me really sad and frustrated.

Felt like this was a v tck coded thing so asking for help if there’s anyone who struggle with this and then figured it out how to make it work. 😢

https://preview.redd.it/l40ccnswnc9h1.png?width=962&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d382d479b5c32da25e2919a6caf1c8194be018d

I get it that it's better than starting in a whole new session but is there a way to NOT have to explain everytime cowork compacts?

And if md files is the way to go, what's the 'good practice' of saving these md files? (everyday? every week? how do you not forget to do so?) arg.

I've been running Claude for planning and a separate session for building, and the part that keeps breaking down is the handoff. whatever I figured out in one session doesn't automatically carry to the next. Curious how others are handling this. Are you using a single tool end-to-end, or mixing Claude with Cursor/Codex/ChatGPT? And if you're mixing, what's your actual handoff process?

Watched a coding agent spend 30 minutes "thinking" on what should've been a 10-minute task — barely touched any tokens, just… sat there. Not the first time I've seen it.

How common is this for everyone else? When your AI coding agent stalls like that, what's usually the cause in your setup — context bloat, a tool call hanging, waiting on a confirmation, something else? And do you just kill + restart, or have you found a way to keep it moving?

Trying to figure out if it's a me-problem or an everyone-problem.

We turned on paid ads for the first time and got the signup bump we wanted... plus a wave of garbage. Fake form fills, throwaway emails, accounts that never come back....

So I added reCAPTCHA, and stopped reporting raw signups internally. We switched our north-star to activated signups (someone who returns and does the core action at least once). That cleaned up the dashboard, but it's a lagging fix.

What I'm trying to get right is quality at the top of the funnel, before it pollutes the numbers. For those of you running acquisition into a SaaS: how do you score or gate signups for quality early? Bot filtering, email verification, behavioral scoring, something at the ad-network level? What actually moved the needle vs. just added friction? Or.. is this just part of the process...?

I’ve been making playlists for as long as I can remember, and it’s basically the external extension of how I feel my emotions.

Do you guys have your own playlists?
Which are your fav or the ones you are most proud of? Feel free to share! Would love to go check them out!

Something I've been chewing on for teams (not solo) setups. When you're working alone, you can coordinate your own AI sessions in your head. But on a team it gets weird fast.

Say my agent finishes something that my teammate's agent needs to build on. Right now the handoff is just... me, messaging my teammate, who then re-feeds it into their own agent with their own context. A human relay between two separate setups.

Within one person's setup there's orchestration, subagents, shared files. But across two different people's agents, there doesn't seem to be a clean way to pass work without a person stitching it together.

• For those on teams running agents: how are you handling the cross-person handoff right now?
• Is it a real friction for you, or does shared access / everyone-uses-the-same-tools make it a non-issue?
• Has anyone actually automated the person-to-person agent handoff, or is the human still the glue?

Genuinely trying to figure out if this is a problem worth solving or if teams have already routed around it.

Something I've been chewing on for teams (not solo) setups. When you're working alone, you can coordinate your own AI sessions in your head. But on a team it gets weird fast.

Say my agent finishes something that my teammate's agent needs to build on. Right now the handoff is just... me, messaging my teammate, who then re-feeds it into their own agent with their own context. A human relay between two separate setups.

Within one person's setup there's orchestration, subagents, shared files. But across two different people's agents, there doesn't seem to be a clean way to pass work without a person stitching it together.

• For those on teams running agents: how are you handling the cross-person handoff right now?
• Is it a real friction for you, or does shared access / everyone-uses-the-same-tools make it a non-issue?
• Has anyone actually automated the person-to-person agent handoff, or is the human still the glue?

Genuinely trying to figure out if this is a problem worth solving or if teams have already routed around it.

Something I keep going back and forth on. When I move work from one AI session to another, I have two options and both feel bad.

Option one: write a tight summary of where things stand and hand that over. Fast, but the new session only knows what I remembered to include, and it'll confidently run with gaps I didn't notice.

Option two: re-explain the full context every time. Reliable, but slow, and I'm basically doing the same setup work over and over.

I can't tell if there's a right answer here or if everyone just picks their poison.

• Which do you lean toward, the lossy-but-fast summary, or the slow-but-complete re-explain?
• If you summarize, what's your rule for what makes the cut?
• Has anyone landed on something that isn't one of these two bad options?

Curious whether people have actually solved this or if we're all just managing it.

Been noticing that the hard part of running multiple AI sessions isn't the work each one does, it's what I lose in between. Every time I move from one session to the next, I'm compressing: summarizing what happened, deciding what's worth carrying over, dropping the rest.

And the dropping is where it goes wrong. I'll leave out something that felt minor, a constraint, a thing we'd already ruled out, and the next session confidently redoes a decision I thought was settled. The summary felt complete when I wrote it. The gap only showed up later.

Curious how others deal with this:

• When you carry context between sessions, what do you deliberately keep vs drop?
• Have you been burned by cutting the wrong thing? What was it?
• Has anyone found a way to hand off that doesn't rely on you writing a lossy summary every time?

Trying to figure out if this is just the nature of working across sessions or if there's actually a better pattern.

Been building an architecture for coordinating multiple independent LLM sessions and wanted to get this community's read on the approach.

The problem: when you're orchestrating multiple sessions, the usual answer is subagents, but subagents are spawned children of one parent process: ephemeral, same model, and they can't reach anything outside that process. I wanted persistent, independent sessions that could message each other peer-to-peer.

The approach: each session gets an inbox and an address. Messaging runs over an MCP-compatible layer, so any model that speaks MCP can send/receive, not tied to one provider. Sessions persist and hold their own context across time instead of dying at end-of-run. And because addressing is independent of who spawned what, a session can message one it didn't create, including a session owned by a different user.

The tradeoff I'm still working through: how to structure the handoff payload so the receiving session gets enough context to act, without dumping a blob so big it can't reason about it. Someone called this "context soup" and the term stuck.

For those building multi-LLM or agent systems: how are you handling cross-session coordination? Curious where this approach breaks down at scale, especially on routing and identity. (Can share access if anyone wants to try it.)

Solo multi-agent is one thing, you can coordinate your own sessions. But I kept hitting a wall on the team version: when one person's agent produces something another person's agent needs, the handoff is just... a human relaying it. One of us copies the output, explains the context, and feeds it into the other person's agent.

Within a single process you've got subagents and orchestration. But across people, across separately-owned sessions, there doesn't seem to be a clean primitive for it. It's all manual bridging.

For those running agents at team scale: how are you solving this? Have you built something, accepted the human-in-the-middle, or is this just not a problem others hit yet?

(We ended up building a messaging layer for exactly this cross-session/cross-person handoff, happy to share if useful, but mostly I want to know how others are approaching it.)

I've been paying attention to my own workflow lately and noticed a lot of my time goes into moving stuff between AI sessions, not the actual thinking. Like I'll get an output in one session and then manually bring the relevant pieces into another so it has what it needs.

What I can't tell is how much of that is necessary vs. me just being sloppy. So I'm curious how others handle it:

• When you move from one session to another, what do you actually carry over? Just the output, or also the reasoning, the decisions, the constraints, what to avoid?
• Have you ever handed off too little and the second session went sideways? Or too much and it got lost in the noise?
• Does anyone have a mental rule for what's "enough context" to pass along?

Trying to figure out if there's a clean pattern here or if it's just inherently messy. Curious what people have landed on.

Hi friends,
As bg info, I am also an INFP, but I grew up under a huge T mother and travelled a lot a bit too early in my childhood, so I apparently ended up stop feeling my emotions.

Now I’m in therapy, getting help with learning how to think, identify, and sit in my emotions. But now, while feeling the emotions is getting a bit easier, I’m struggling to know how to manage or regulate them when they feel super big, vulnerable, or shame-coded.

For example, I am currently erm fighting against a newly developing crush on my coworker/friend because I KNOW that things are not going to work out and we have way too much risks getting into this relationship. But he (who is also an INFP) says things once a while that feels so warm and reassuring that i feel kinda shaken to the core. Or, I would be doing better but then I would meet eyes with him, and then feel electricity, and then for the whole weekend I would have to kinda sit myself down and try to process all these emotions so that they wouldn’t overtake me (but ironically in doing so it did overtake my weekend lol). It feels like I’m calming an internal emotional monster who wants to roam free but I know the damage it will cause haha…

😭

How do you guys process effectively? It doesn’t have to be romantic feelings either, maybe when you’re feeling depressed or ashamed… what’s your method?

For background info, I'm currently working on a project where we started out with the goal of building an agent orchestration product that can almost completely eliminate humans from the loop.

That's the philosophy, that's the goal, and maybe that is the direction that AI products need to try to go towards, but I keep wondering if putting out a product that minimizes human in the loop NOW is a good idea or not.

From the perspective of gaining users and visitors, I personally felt like LLMs, while advanced and amazing, still needs human guidance on direction. And, when it comes to the matter of 'taste', there is almost no way AI's in today's day and age will be able to figure out 100% completely.

So integrating human in loop design felt extremely necessary. Even if it's temporary, if we want to get users now, we should incorprate.

The counter I got about this was that, while that is how reality is now, AI advancement speed is so fast that investing in HITL now is a waste of resources. It also counters our product philosophy, so we shouldn't do it. He believed that even if the product is not perfect, if users agree with our philosophy, they will still pay and use our product.

What do you think?