written on June 23, 2026
I don’t prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to write loops.
— Boris Cherny
Over the last months I have watched more and more people build something on top of coding agents that feels meaningfully different from just using a coding agent. Some of this happens on top of Pi which is cool to see for sure! The pattern is the same everywhere though: work is put into a queue of sorts, a machine picks it up, attempts it, stops, and then some harness decides whether that was actually the end.
If not, the harness continues the same session, injects another message, starts a fresh session with modified context, or sends the task to another machine. The task stays alive beyond the point where the model by itself would normally have said: “I am done.”
I think about that type of loop more than I want to admit.
There is already an agent loop inside every coding agent. The model calls a tool, incorporates the result, calls another tool, reads a file, edits a file, runs tests, and eventually produces some answer. That loop is one we have been quite familiar with for a long time. The other loop is the harness level loop: the loop outside the agent loop. That loop is also not new. We have been doing versions of this since early Claude Code days, but that loop is becoming ever more present in agentic engineering and in recent weeks it has started to dominate the Twitter discourse.
My current status is that I have not had much success with this way of working for code I deeply care about which turns out to be quite a lot of code.
Part of that is taste and part of it is control. I attempt to set a high bar for what I want code to look like, and I want to understand the code I ship. Under pressure, or in a discussion with another human, I want to be able to explain what the system does without first having to ask a clanker to explain it to me. Now there is obviously a question if this desire to understand the code is one that I will still have a few years from now. For now I have not moved past the point of comprehension being important to me.
Given this desire, there is something I lack with my experience of code written without me paying attention, particularly from loops. Present-day models tend to produce code that is too defensive, too complex, too local in its reasoning. They avoid strong invariants. They add fallbacks instead of making bad states impossible. They duplicate code, invent bad abstractions, and paper over unclear design with more machinery. Worse though: I so far see very little progress of this improving. If anything, on that front it feels to me that we might even be making steps in the wrong direction. At least for my taste, present-day hands-off harnesses like Claude Code with ultracode produce worse code than what we were producing last autumn. That’s because Claude Code, with Fable for instance will be working uninterrupted on a problem for thirty minutes or more, when previously the process would have been much more human in the loop.
Furthermore it’s well understood that models tend to observe some local failure and add a local defense. Karpathy mentioned how they are “mortally terrified of exceptions”. In systems with important invariants, especially persisted data formats or core infrastructure, the right fix is not “handle every malformed case.” The right fix is to make the malformed case unrepresentable or impossible to write in the first place. Yet even with a lot of manual steering, that type of code does not come out of LLMs naturally, and even if the code comes out naturally like that, they will still attempt to handle now impossible errors.
When you take that behavior and you put it behind loops, you tend to amplify it. If each iteration adds another small defense, the system slowly becomes less understandable while appearing more robust. The more hands-off you are, the more that happens. It also teaches really bad practices when tools like this are given to juniors without clear guidance. Because if you ask them, why they are doing all that, they will convincingly argue their case.
At the same time, it would be dishonest to pretend the loop pattern does not work because it already works astonishingly well in some domains.
Porting code one of them. There are already impressive examples of large automatic porting efforts, including the reported work around moving parts of Bun from Zig to Rust. I have used it with success myself to port MiniJinja to Go. Performance explorations are another case where this works beautifully. A machine can try experiments, benchmark them, discard failures, and keep searching. Security scanning fits naturally too and so does almost any type of research: asking a system to explore a complex problem space and report back without necessarily committing lasting code. One thing that many of these have in common is that they either do not generate new code, but transform code that already exists, or they produce code that intentionally does not have a long shelf life. They either produce proof of concepts or ideas, surface findings or are more akin to mechnical transformation.
I believe that loops that produce artifacts without necessity of longevity or that create some form of clearly verifiable mechnical translation matters more than the general ability of a harness to mechanically measure a goal. Many successful applications of loops use another LLM as a judge or as an orchestrator. The mechnical translation case can be verified with a binary test case, but it can also be judged by an LLM instead!
Claude Code, for instance, is increasingly good at creating entire experimental workflows that it will then execute. Sure, the code it produces is slop, but that’s more the fault of the model than the harness not being a good judge on if a step in the workflow resulted in a net improvement or completion.
The harness just needs some signal that lets it continue. It does not have to be objective or binary, it just has to be useful enough to drive another iteration.
I absolutely love loops already that take the boring parts out of my day to experiment and measure and to give me ideas.
On the other hand using that same looping methodology to write lasting code does not yet sit well with me. The metaphor I like to reach for is one of moving from software as a deterministic machine to software as an organism.
I became a software engineer in an enviornment that encouraged me to understand the machine. There was always a layer you could peel off to deepen your understanding. Machines that did not exhibit deterministic observable behavior were maybe accepted, but generally seen as not exactly optimal. Software architecture-wise, I saw it as desireable to push further towards more determinism rather than less. Likewise the ability to understand the code has been an undeniable goal. In practice not always possible we still took pride in writing code so that it became possible even for new engineers to navigate complex code bases through clever architecture. On well designed systems there were always engineers that knew where the invariantes lived, which parts were load-bearing and which changes were safe. Ideally all of that was also well documented. Where that understanding was lacking, it was generally regarded as something to improve upon.
Obviously that ideal has always been strained. Many software systems, especially very successful ones had periods where engineers on the team were able to keep them clean. Large software systems are not infrequently too big, too dynamic and too dependent on external services to fit into anyone’s head. Even without LLMs we already diagnose distributed systems somewhat like doctors in that we observe symptoms, form hypotheses, “order more tests”, try some remedies, and observe again.
Yet with LLMs we’re pushing much further in that direction and much quicker. We use them to write the code and we also use them for diagnosis and remedy. There are plenty of engineers that already live in a world in which the first step after the occurrence of a production issue is followed by having a clanker read logs, propose root causes and proactively put up a patch. The resulting patch is then often picked up by another machine that reviews, sometimes even landing it on main without any human supervision.
Obviously that is powerful and I cannot deny that it sounds appealing. But giving in to that idea, particularly with less and less human oversight means accepting that we may no longer understand the whole system in the same way. We treat it, we monitor it, we stabilize it, but we do not necessarily comprehend it.
I have no doubts that for some software, that is okay. Not every line of code deserves human authorship and worse code might have been written in the past.
But do I want all software to be authored this way?
What’s very uncomfortable is that opting out of this fully machine-driven future may not be an option.
Security is the clearest example today. Even if you do not use loops to build your software, other people will use loops against your software. Attackers will run machines continuously and even if it’s not attackers, then security researchers will and some of that automated work will throw up dust but also find real issues. And both the signal and the noise will come your way at a volume that makes it almost impossible to deal with unless you yourself throw a machine at the problem.
Daniel Stenberg’s post about curl’s summer of bliss is a good example of the pressure maintainers are already under. As far as I know, AI does not play a tremendous role in the core development of curl today. Yet despite all of this, maintainers are overwhelmed by reports, most of which are now AI-generated ones.
If attackers and reporters loop, defenders will eventually need to loop too to keep up. Maybe not to write patches directly, maybe just to triage and reproduce and pressure will increase.
The same is true competitively as some teams will out-build others through raw speed. Some projects will suddenly move faster because a tiny group figures out how to orchestrate machines effectively. Some startups will do with five people what used to require fifty. Some people might literally put a machine against your product in a loop and ask it to “make it like the other one.” And if their users are happy, does it really matter?
Not all software will be equally affected. Some domains will punish sloppiness and demand trust and responsibility, but a lot of software lives in a world where raw speed, quick experimentation, and vast coverage matter enormously.
The scariest part to me is that we become dependent on these new machines in new ways. Software has always depended on tools. I remember the time when I had to pay for compilers. These new tools are a flashback to times where creating software came with real costs. But now it’s no longer a one-time payment, it’s a constant dependency. Not just a dependency on a filled wallet, but also a cognitive dependency.
If a codebase is produced by loops, reviewed by loops, patched by loops, and kept alive by loops, what happens when you no longer have access to the same class of systems? What happens when some trade restrictions take away access to the most powerful models? What if just the cost becomes unbearable? What if you and your team just lose the last remaining ability to understand the code without using the machine?
We may create codebases that are not merely hard to maintain by humans, but that assume machine participation as part of their maintenance model. This is already happening! It’s not happening everywhere, and it might not even be happening in ways that are seen as problematic, but we see more and more of it. People more and more merge code they cannot fully explain. People lose their ability to create issue reports or discuss things in chat, without augmenting or rephrasing their messages with the context provided by a clanker. Too many people increasingly rely on a machine to summarize or contextualize it. More and more do I encounter people who converse with me through the indirection of an LLM.
Again, maybe that is not even going to be wrong, but it’s a massive change to how we did things.
I have little doubt that this is where things are going but going there will require us to do something about our tooling everywhere, and not just in the coding agents.
Just orchestrating more loops won’t be enough. Better visualizations of changes or orchestration or agents will not restore our understanding. Either we need to find clever ways to jolt the human back into the loop and make the changes of the loops legible long term, or we need to find better ways to compose these ever more complex systems.
This is also where my thinking about the role of Pi is changing. Pi has been cautious, and I think that caution is good. I do not want a future where every interaction turns into an uncontrolled swarm of machines making changes I cannot follow. I would not want Pi to become an unmaintainable mess in an effort to win the race towards software that writes itself and I would not want Pi to promote this type of engineering either. At the same time Pi is a harness and harnesses are at the center of people running these new types of experiments.
Task queues for coding tasks, orchestration of agents, subagents, durable sessions will matter more and more. Even those of us who have their reservations and are not blindly embracing loops will have to start doing those experiments. We need to, because we need to understand how to make this future bounded and survivable.
As you can read from this post, I’m very uneasy about this future. Not cause of fear, but because of caution given experiences with this technology so far.
Adopting the idea of harness loops means that the harness decides when work is finished. In the agent loop, the model eventually says “done” and I review. Even before that, I usually steer along the way. I am involved and I enjoy learning along the way. In the harness operated loop I’m not sure what my role even is. Even the “done” signal loses all meanings and just becomes communicated to yet another machine that judges. My role is reduced to that of a messenger.
Today I do not like much of the code that I see from systems built that way and neither do I enjoy interacting with too much of software built with AI assistence. Looping is powerful but it removes responsibility more and more, and it at least today very much encourages us to give in to the machine.
And yet I have no doubts that this looping future is going to be our future despite the fact that I presently resent it. I already see astonishingly small teams building at impossible speed and I see codebases turning more and more into obscure and confusing organisms that can only be diagnosed by more machines. Those codebases are simultaniously useful and messy.
So I guess I’m coming to terms with that the question is not whether we will loop because clearly we will. Maybe the question is that in a future of loops, how do we don’t abdicate judgment, how we can retain rules of good engineering, how we can ensure that responsible human can continue to supervise, how we need to re-think how we architect code to retain sanity along the way.