Post

The more I work on harnesses, the more I’ve come to dislike the term and metaphor, for two reasons. Note, terminology here is roughly: model (self-explanatory) + harness (software around model, can simply be agentic loop) = agent. This may not be universal but it’s common enough. So the first

reason is the more practical one: the metaphor is brittle. While most people just interact with a coding harness, they’re also extensible - MCP servers, skills, scripts, etc. can be bolted on to any decent coding harness. These are increasingly packaged separately, as a harness for your harness.

IRL you don’t harness a harness, that’s nonsense. The metaphor is also broken definitionally. A harness is used to direct, yes, but also (and more core to its function) hold something back. Agent harnesses don’t hold anything back! They give models their agency and augment their abilities, unlike

Argh see, the thing is I want a harness that does not merely give my model terminal control over my computer, but lets it do specific things instead. Thats why I call it a harness.

a research question. And it's already like 90% there.