[ruso-0]

Let's see, this is a great project, but the sandboxed virtual machine approach makes sense. I've had Claude Code destroy a configuration file on my local machine more than once, so running it remotely is actually smart, but I'm not sure.

However, when creating MCP tools, I've noticed that the processing isn't really what's expensive. It's when the agent gets stuck in a loop. For example, I note writes faulty code, executes it, detects the error, tries to "fix" it, makes it worse, rinses it, and repeats it 5 to 10 times. This quickly consumes the context window, regardless of where the code is running.

I'm curious: Does Oblien detect when an agent is simply wasting time? Or is that left to the agent framework? Because, I mean, sometimes I look for that solution and there isn't one :(

[hydralerne]

You hit on the exact "infinite loop of doom" that plagues every agent developer right now.

The short answer is: No, Oblien does not detect when an agent is wasting time. We leave that entirely to the agent framework.

Oblien is strictly the infrastructure layer. We don't inspect the semantic meaning of the commands the LLM is running, nor do we analyze the context window.

However, what Oblien does provide are the infrastructure-level circuit breakers so the framework can build that logic easily:

1. Hard Timeouts: When the framework calls our POST /exec endpoint, it can pass a timeout_seconds parameter. If the agent writes a script that accidentally infinite-loops the CPU, the runtime kills it at the OS level automatically. 2. Resource Isolation: Because it's a microVM, a runaway process won't lock up your host machine or bleed into other workspaces.

Detecting the logical loop (the "I wrote bad code, let me try again" cycle) is definitely the holy grail for frameworks right now. But our goal with Oblien is just to ensure that when the agent does inevitably hallucinate and run rm -rf or spin up a fork bomb

[webpolis]

Loop detection is the harder problem and almost nobody solves it well at the infra layer. The pattern you're describing — write, fail, "fix," regress — is fundamentally a semantic loop, not a mechanical one. You can't catch it by diffing outputs or counting retries because each iteration looks superficially different. The agent thinks it's making progress.

What actually works in my experience: budget the agent a rolling token window per subtask, not per session. If it burns 40% of its context on a single function without a passing test, force an early return with the error context and let the orchestrator decide whether to retry with a different prompt or bail. Putting that logic in the VM host is tempting but wrong — the host doesn't have the semantic context to know "stuck" from "legitimately hard." That belongs in the agent framework or a thin supervisor shim between the framework and the execution environment.