[Peritract]

This all seems like a lot of effort so that an agent can run `npm run build` for you.

I get the article's overall point, but if we're looking to optimise processing and reduce costs, then 'only using agents for things that benefit from using agents' seems like an immediate win.

You don't need an agent for simple, well-understood commands. Use them for things where the complexity/cost is worth it.

[m0rde]

Feedback loops are important to agents. In the article, the agent runs this build command and notices an error. With that feedback loop, it can iterate a solution without requiring human intervention. But the fact that the build command pollutes the context in this case is a double-edge sword.

[tovej]

If you really need that, the easy solution here is to get a list of errors using an LSP (or any other way of getting a list of errors, even grep "Error:"), and only giving that list of errors to the LLM if the build fails. Otherwise just tell the LLM "build succeeded".

That's an extremely simple solution. I don't see the point in this LLM=true bullshit.

[teekert]

But those simple and well understood commands can be part of a huge workflow the LLM embarks on.

[Peritract]

Again, if your priority is to minimise costs, then not forcing every part of that huge workflow through the agent is a good start.