[patriceckhart]

pi is awesome, quite possibly the best OSS tool out there. You should definitely give it a shot if it fits your stack. zot has become my daily driver. I didnt build zot to compete. I built it to really get a feel for how harnesses work, and I do it with Go simply because I love the language. More on that here: https://www.patriceckhart.com/blog/posts/2026-04-23/why-i-bu...

[hydra-f]

What makes pi so awesome? It feels as though the whole thing is held together with tape. Poor performance, poor UX. Security is an afterthought. Not that versatile (as of yet). You certainly are better off writing your own personal harness.

[patriceckhart]

pi is extensible at every turn. thats what makes it special. zot is more limited there.

[hydra-f]

Extensibility has a cost which affects all my earlier points. Pi is fine for testing things you might include in your harness, but that's where I would draw the line

[patriceckhart]

You rocking your own harness? Public by any chance? If so, mind if I take a look?

[hydra-f]

Not yet. I am slowly gathering resources for it, mapping out the commands, toolset and the overall UX. As well as handling the whole project management part.

I decided to exercise a bit of patience to see what other people achieve through their harnesses first (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48192383, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48164287).

I've chosen Rust as the language and the late summer as a deadline. If a harness is too opinionated, I don't really see the point in pushing it on anyone. And mine, I'm building it for my own workflow. So there's that

[patriceckhart]

I get it. Ha, over in Zerostack I even got a shoutout with zot. :-)

[0gs]

i am somebody else but my Show HN got zero engagement so please feel free to look at mine: http://github.com/0gsd/enough n.b. not a coding harness. it's for writing. but extensibility is a big (perhaps too big) part of it. http://enough.support has some of the principles outlined.

[Terretta]

Here is some engagement: your project may be hard to engage with unless someone is highly motivated?

> "this is because `enough` imposes very few paradigms on your wordflows -- in a world of exponential possibility, most people have as many things they want to do as ways they prefer to do them."

OK, but, having read the GitHub and the reverse chronology discourse, but not doing the install, I cannot immediately tell what anyone's wordflow might be or whether this could be helpful in any way.

Usually from looking at a project I can imagine a venn diagram of things I want to do and things the thing does. Not here. Also, I felt I was pointed to principles, but rather than principles of the tools purpose, I found motivations for the author and meta comments about the discourse site itself, rather than motivations to use the tool or comments on its application to authoring assistance.

Rather than those, ironically the best entry point seems to be the agent guide:

https://github.com/0gsd/enough/blob/main/docs/AGENT_GUIDE_v0...

From there it appears you're trying to make a combination of humane/verbal human-driving-the-loop document reviser (e.g. the colored text visualizer and agentic tool to grab references by color for other tool consideration), and a substrate (cough) for arbitrary "paradigms" of working towards producing writing of a given "motivation". From there, one goes into the `defaults` to find translation and text planning paradigms:

https://github.com/0gsd/enough/blob/main/defaults/paradigms/...

https://github.com/0gsd/enough/blob/main/defaults/paradigms/...

While the spelunking approach can give the idea, is there any writeup anywhere that walks someone through the concept and an applied example from the POV of the human who made this?

I note non-ironically the text planner has no explainer in the example document types. :-)