[flowofcontrol]

Thanks, Ill watch the youtube video.

I guess I'm trying to define the agent itself to be wider than just the chat loop. The reason is that, when we test agents (not in production yet), the results are extremely varied depending on the model you use, the system context, what the current context holds, etc. So I guess I could replace my agent-definition with agent-harness? I also like the 'production tools' list from the bottom of the emperor has no clothes article. My main goal though remains to be able to express how the agentic system is constructed (be that the harnass, the production tooling or the agent definition) and the actual current state (that is what i defined the agent to be). And then afterwards, be able to reason about what characteristics are good for which types of agentic systems.

I don't know if that makes sense?

[shekharupadhaya]

Yes, it does. And the thing is this space is very new and evolving and things are very opinionated which is fine, because there isn't much book written about this like we have in our CS degree, this is new and changing. I think the distinction between the what is an agent and agent harness need to be made clear. Harness is the machinery around the agent(ic loop) which does the state management, the system prompt, etc) that what is claude code and codex are basically they are native agent harness. Now the user with their own custom tooling, skills and added machinery makes it a user harness and when that get to a point that the user harness stuff can be looped, that it goes to another level like an orchestrator. What you are refering to I guess is the native inner harness machinery, how does that work and how it comes together.

llm -> agentic loop -> native agent harness (inner harness) -> user harness (outer harness) -> orchestrator