[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"article-llm-research-engineers-post-training-services-en":3,"article-related-llm-research-engineers-post-training-services-en":30,"series-ai-agent-39f54361-7d76-4dfe-be99-dcae84f18a07":80},{"id":4,"slug":5,"title":6,"content":7,"summary":8,"source":9,"source_url":10,"author":11,"image_url":12,"cover_image":12,"category":13,"language":14,"translated_content":11,"related_article_id":15,"keywords":16,"key_takeaways":22,"views":26,"created_at":27,"published_at":28,"topic_cluster_id":29},"39f54361-7d76-4dfe-be99-dcae84f18a07","llm-research-engineers-post-training-services-en","LLM research engineers turn post-training into services","\u003Cp data-speakable=\"summary\">A practical breakdown of Codersarts’ on-demand \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fllm\">LLM\u003C\u002Fa> training work.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I've been around enough LLM projects to know the part that looks easy is usually the part that lies to you. Wiring an \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fapi\">API\u003C\u002Fa>? Fine. Shipping a chat UI? Fine. But once the model is in front of real users, the whole thing gets weird fast. It starts saying “yes” when it should argue back, it passes your demo and fails your actual edge cases, and nobody can tell whether a fine-tune helped or just made the output prettier. I’ve had teams tell me they “tested it manually” like that means anything beyond a lucky afternoon.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That’s why I paid attention when I hit \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.codersarts.com\u002Fpost\u002Fhire-llm-research-engineers\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Codersarts’ post on hiring LLM training research engineers\u003C\u002Fa>. They’re not pitching generic AI help. They’re packaging the annoying, expensive, and easy-to-mess-up parts of post-training into scoped work: benchmarks, supervised fine-tuning, RLHF, alignment, reasoning research, and RL environment design. The useful bit is not the buzzwords. It’s the fact that they’re treating these as engineering deliverables, not vague “AI consulting.”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This matters because most teams don’t need a theory lecture. They need a reproducible eval harness, a sane fine-tuning pipeline, and a way to prove the model got better without hand-waving. That’s the thread I’m pulling apart below.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>They start with the question teams keep dodging: does it actually work?\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“Benchmark and evaluation engineering answers these questions with reproducible, automated, measurable systems — not manual testing or gut feel.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that a model is only as good as the measurement around it. If you can’t re-run the same test next month and get comparable results, you don’t have an evaluation strategy. You have a demo. Codersarts calls out the usual failure mode directly: teams ship a model without a rigorous answer to whether it reasons correctly, hallucinates on domain data, or beats the baseline they replaced.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781402606334-iyoh.png\" alt=\"LLM research engineers turn post-training into services\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>I’ve seen this bite teams hard. They’ll swap prompts, swap models, tweak temperature, then declare victory because the outputs “feel better.” Then a customer hits a weird edge case and the whole story falls apart. The fix is boring, which is usually why people skip it: define the task, define the scoring, version the dataset, and keep the harness stable.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Codersarts’ \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fbenchmark\">benchmark\u003C\u002Fa> work includes implementations of published evaluations like \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fhuggingface.co\u002Fspaces\u002Fopencompass\u002Fopencompass\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">MMLU\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.swebench.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">SWE-bench\u003C\u002Fa>, and hallucination-oriented work such as \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Farxiv.org\u002Fabs\u002F2401.07360\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">HalluLens\u003C\u002Fa>. The point isn’t to worship benchmark names. The point is to get a known measurement pattern working against your own model.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: start with one benchmark that reflects your real failure mode, then add a custom domain eval on top. If you’re building a coding assistant, use a task like \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.swebench.com\u002F\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">SWE-bench\u003C\u002Fa> as a reference point, then create your own dataset from the bugs and tickets your users actually file. If you’re in a regulated domain, your rubric should include format, factuality, refusal behavior, and traceability. If you can’t explain the score to someone outside the ML team, it’s probably too fuzzy.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Version the eval dataset like code.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Store every run with model, prompt, seed, and rubric version.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Compare against a fixed baseline, not yesterday’s improvisation.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Fine-tuning is data work first, training second\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“The most common failure in fine-tuning is not the training process — it is the data.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>That line is the whole game. People love talking about LoRA, QLoRA, and adapter tuning like the trick is in the optimizer. It usually isn’t. The model learns exactly what you feed it, including your sloppy examples, inconsistent formatting, and weird edge-case bias. If your dataset is a mess, your fine-tune will be a more expensive mess.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Codersarts says they build instruction-response datasets, run LoRA and QLoRA pipelines, and handle chain-of-thought dataset construction when reasoning matters. That lines up with how I’ve seen successful fine-tunes work in practice: narrow scope, clean examples, clear output format, and a tight eval loop before and after training. I’m not interested in “we fine-tuned a model” as a sentence. I want to know what changed, on which tasks, and by how much.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>They mention toolchains like \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fhuggingface.co\u002Fdocs\u002Ftrl\u002Findex\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Hugging Face TRL\u003C\u002Fa>, \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Faxolotl-ai-cloud\u002Faxolotl\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Axolotl\u003C\u002Fa>, and \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fhuggingface\u002Fpeft\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">PEFT\u003C\u002Fa>. That’s the right neighborhood. These tools let a team train adapters on top of open-weight models like Llama, Mistral, Phi, or Gemma without pretending they need frontier-scale infrastructure.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: don’t begin with the full product surface. Start with one narrow behavior you want to improve. Maybe it’s response format. Maybe it’s domain jargon. Maybe it’s refusal behavior. Build a dataset of real prompts and ideal answers, then create a holdout set that includes the ugly cases. If the fine-tune only looks good on training examples, it’s not a win. It’s overfitting with a nicer name.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Collect 100 to 500 high-quality examples before you touch training.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Separate “format compliance” from “knowledge recall” in your evals.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Use before\u002Fafter comparisons, not vibes.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>RLHF is about preference, not just correctness\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“RLHF teaches it to produce outputs that humans actually prefer.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>That’s the part people miss when they treat alignment like a checkbox. Supervised fine-tuning can teach a model what to say. RLHF and related methods teach it which answer humans would rather keep. Those are not the same thing. A response can be technically correct and still be annoying, unsafe, evasive, or badly phrased for the product.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781402592443-l7vt.png\" alt=\"LLM research engineers turn post-training into services\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>Codersarts breaks this into preference dataset construction, reward model training, DPO training, GRPO implementation, PPO-based RLHF, and alignment evaluation. That’s a real post-training stack, not a vague “we do alignment” claim. I appreciate that they also mention \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Farxiv.org\u002Fabs\u002F2305.18290\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">DPO\u003C\u002Fa>, because for most teams it’s the practical route: simpler than full PPO loops, cheaper to run, and easier to stabilize.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve run into this exact issue when a model was “correct” but users hated it. It was too verbose in support flows, too timid in technical flows, and too eager to refuse in places where it should have helped. Fine-tuning alone didn’t fix that. Preference data did, because it encoded what a good answer looked like in context.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: collect pairwise judgments on real outputs. Ask which response is better and why, then turn those preferences into a training set. Keep the rubric small at first: helpfulness, harmlessness, honesty. If you can’t get clean human preferences, don’t fake RLHF. Fix the data collection process first. That’s the part that actually decides whether the reward signal is worth anything.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>For teams that want a practical reference point, the alignment stack usually looks like this:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Generate multiple candidate answers for the same prompt.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Have a human or trusted reviewer choose the better one.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Train on those preferences with DPO or a reward-model workflow.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Re-run the same eval set and check whether the behavior shifted in the direction you wanted.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Reasoning work is not “make the model think harder”\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“Improving reasoning performance requires specialized training data, reward signals that evaluate process not just outcome, and evaluation frameworks that test step-by-step correctness.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that reasoning is a training problem, a data problem, and an eval problem all at once. If you only score the final answer, you miss whether the model got there by actual multi-step thinking or by lucky pattern matching. If you only train on final answers, you don’t teach the process. And if you only use generic benchmarks, you won’t catch where the reasoning breaks in your domain.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Codersarts points to chain-of-thought dataset construction, reasoning-specific evaluation, and process-aware training. That’s the right framing. I’ve seen teams chase “reasoning” by throwing more tokens at the prompt, which is a nice way to spend money while pretending you solved a systems problem. If the model needs structured steps, then the training data and the scoring need to reward structured steps.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>There’s a practical split here. Some teams need the model to show its work internally but not expose every step to the end user. Others need visible reasoning because the user has to inspect the logic. Those are different product constraints, so the dataset design should reflect that.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: build a task set with known intermediate steps. Math, code fixes, policy decisions, and multi-hop retrieval all work well here. Then compare three runs: base model, SFT on final answers, and SFT on reasoning traces. If the reasoning trace version performs better on hard cases and doesn’t wreck simpler ones, you’ve got signal. If it only gets longer, you’ve got verbosity.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>One useful habit is to score the process separately from the outcome:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Did the model identify the right subproblem?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Did it preserve constraints across steps?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Did it land on the correct final answer?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Agent and environment work is where prototypes stop lying\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“We design RL environments that mirror the task, reward the right behavior, and support iterative training.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the part I wish more teams took seriously earlier. If you’re building coding agents, workflow agents, or software engineering assistants, the environment matters as much as the model. A model can look smart in chat and then fail the first time it needs to act across multiple steps, use tools, or recover from a bad intermediate state.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Codersarts includes coding \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fagent\">agent\u003C\u002Fa> and software engineering research, plus RL environment design. That means they’re not just training text predictors. They’re shaping task environments so the model can be evaluated and improved against actual workflows. That’s a different class of work, and honestly, it’s the one that separates toy demos from systems people can trust.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I ran into this when a prototype agent could explain a fix perfectly but couldn’t actually execute the sequence of repository changes needed to land it. The issue wasn’t “the model is dumb.” The issue was that the environment never forced it to handle state, tool calls, or recoverable errors. Once the environment got stricter, the failure modes got obvious, which was exactly what we needed.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: define the environment around the real task. For code, that might mean repo checkout, test execution, patch application, and verification. For support automation, it might mean ticket context, knowledge base retrieval, and response drafting. Then reward completion, correctness, and safe behavior. If the environment is too loose, the model learns to talk. If it’s too tight in the wrong places, it learns to game the reward.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Useful checks before you start:\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Can the task be reset and replayed?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Is the reward tied to the actual outcome, not a proxy that can be gamed?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Can you log every action step for later review?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>What Codersarts is really selling is scoped post-training labor\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“We implement benchmarks, run fine-tuning pipelines, build RLHF systems, and design RL environments — as scoped, production-ready engineering work, delivered on demand.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the sentence that makes the whole post make sense. They’re not selling magic. They’re selling a team that can walk into the ugly middle of your LLM project and turn the post-training part into something measurable, repeatable, and shippable.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That matters because most in-house teams are overloaded. They have product deadlines, infra issues, prompt iteration, and stakeholder pressure all at once. Post-training research gets pushed into “later,” which is code for “never, unless someone else owns it.” Codersarts is positioning itself as that someone else.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it if you’re building internally: break the work into three buckets. First, evaluation and benchmark design. Second, training data and fine-tuning. Third, preference alignment and environment design. If you can’t staff all three, buy the missing piece instead of pretending prompt tweaks will cover it. They won’t.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>If you’re hiring for this work, don’t ask for generic “AI experience.” Ask for concrete proof: eval harnesses they built, fine-tuning runs they reproduced, preference data they designed, and environments they used to train or test agents. That’s the difference between someone who can talk about post-training and someone who can ship it.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The template you can copy\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode># LLM Post-Training Scope Template\n\n## 1) Goal\nWe need to improve one specific model behavior:\n- Task:\n- User segment:\n- Current failure mode:\n- Target outcome:\n\n## 2) Evaluation Plan\nWe will measure success with:\n- Primary benchmark:\n- Custom domain dataset:\n- Rubric dimensions:\n  - factual accuracy\n  - reasoning quality\n  - format adherence\n  - safety \u002F refusal behavior\n  - domain-specific criteria\n- Baseline model \u002F prompt:\n- Reproducibility requirements:\n  - fixed dataset version\n  - logged prompts\n  - logged seeds\n  - logged model versions\n\n## 3) Fine-Tuning Plan\nWe will train:\n- Base model:\n- Method: LoRA \u002F QLoRA \u002F full fine-tune\n- Dataset type:\n  - instruction-response pairs\n  - chain-of-thought traces\n  - domain examples\n- Data rules:\n  - clean formatting\n  - no duplicate examples\n  - holdout set reserved\n  - edge cases included\n- Training tools:\n  - Hugging Face TRL\n  - PEFT\n  - Axolotl\n  - Weights & Biases\n\n## 4) Alignment Plan\nWe will improve preference behavior with:\n- Preference data source:\n- Judging rubric:\n  - helpfulness\n  - harmlessness\n  - honesty\n- Method:\n  - DPO\n  - reward model + PPO\n  - GRPO if needed\n- Acceptance criteria:\n  - better human preference scores\n  - no regression on safety\n  - no regression on core task accuracy\n\n## 5) Reasoning \u002F Agent Plan\nIf the task needs multi-step behavior:\n- Reasoning traces required: yes \u002F no\n- Environment definition:\n- Tool actions supported:\n- Reset \u002F replay support:\n- Reward definition:\n- Failure logging:\n\n## 6) Delivery Artifacts\nThe work should ship with:\n- eval harness\n- benchmark report\n- training config\n- dataset schema\n- before\u002Fafter comparison\n- deployment notes\n- reproducibility checklist\n\n## 7) Done Means\nThis project is done when:\n- the model beats baseline on the agreed evals\n- the result is reproducible\n- the failure modes are documented\n- the team can rerun the pipeline without guesswork\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003Cp>The original source is \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.codersarts.com\u002Fpost\u002Fhire-llm-research-engineers\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Codersarts’ hire-LLM-research-engineers post\u003C\u002Fa>. My breakdown is original commentary and implementation advice built from that source, not a copy of their sales copy.\u003C\u002Fp>","A practical breakdown of Codersarts’ on-demand LLM training work, with a copy-ready template for evals, SFT, RLHF, and alignment.","www.codersarts.com","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.codersarts.com\u002Fpost\u002Fhire-llm-research-engineers",null,"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781402606334-iyoh.png","ai-agent","en","5e2ed9f7-4240-429b-97c7-ffd31e4a45ee",[17,18,19,20,21],"LLM fine-tuning","RLHF","benchmarking","alignment","post-training",[23,24,25],"Benchmarks only matter if they are reproducible and tied to real failure modes.","Fine-tuning succeeds or fails on dataset quality, not just training settings.","RLHF and agent work need preference data, environment design, and strict evals.",0,"2026-06-14T02:02:47.274885+00:00","2026-06-14T02:02:47.259+00:00","c58956f2-0e6f-4be5-b68a-39eda67428b3",{"tags":31,"relatedLang":39,"relatedPosts":43},[32,33,35,37,38],{"name":20,"slug":20},{"name":18,"slug":34},"rlhf",{"name":17,"slug":36},"llm-fine-tuning",{"name":19,"slug":19},{"name":21,"slug":21},{"id":15,"slug":40,"title":41,"language":42},"llm-research-engineers-post-training-services-zh","LLM研究工程師把後訓練做成服務","zh",[44,50,56,62,68,74],{"id":45,"slug":46,"title":47,"cover_image":48,"image_url":48,"created_at":49,"category":13},"88192de5-5bda-4eba-ae2a-157d4bbea8d7","coinbase-ai-agent-accounts-strict-limits-en","Coinbase is right to let AI agents trade and spend, with strict limits","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781409759613-rhzp.png","2026-06-14T04:02:15.747337+00:00",{"id":51,"slug":52,"title":53,"cover_image":54,"image_url":54,"created_at":55,"category":13},"4d6fc0c2-481a-48c6-9743-2f3f77945134","peft-llm-fine-tuning-without-full-retraining-en","PEFT for LLM Fine-Tuning Without Full Retraining","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781403469215-8tu4.png","2026-06-14T02:17:26.696413+00:00",{"id":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"cover_image":60,"image_url":60,"created_at":61,"category":13},"00cabbf4-05e7-440c-be15-b8f441a1506f","fine-tuning-slms-turns-enterprise-ai-practical-en","Fine-Tuning SLMs Turns Enterprise AI Practical","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781359408003-mj9d.png","2026-06-13T14:02:55.855964+00:00",{"id":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"cover_image":66,"image_url":66,"created_at":67,"category":13},"50d67ff2-698e-4ac1-9b5f-9233550bdc00","aspire-microsoft-agent-framework-app-graph-en","Aspire ties Microsoft Agent Framework into one app graph","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781353081127-r8l2.png","2026-06-13T12:17:30.899796+00:00",{"id":69,"slug":70,"title":71,"cover_image":72,"image_url":72,"created_at":73,"category":13},"65872119-5c63-409f-b8f9-338096299326","fable-5-claude-code-like-coworker-en","Fable 5 让 Claude Code 更像真同事","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781324307625-of8c.png","2026-06-13T04:18:01.203421+00:00",{"id":75,"slug":76,"title":77,"cover_image":78,"image_url":78,"created_at":79,"category":13},"9abeb68f-5750-43b5-baff-d454f58068f0","fine-tuning-methods-sft-lora-dpo-rlhf-grpo-en","Fine-Tuning Methods: SFT, LoRA, DPO, RLHF, GRPO","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1781262188430-9te1.png","2026-06-12T11:02:33.676197+00:00",[81,86,91,96,101,106,111,116,121,126],{"id":82,"slug":83,"title":84,"created_at":85},"03db8de8-8dc2-4ac1-9cf7-898782efbb1f","anthropic-claude-ai-agent-task-automation-en","Anthropic's Claude AI Agent: A New Era of Task Automation","2026-03-25T16:25:06.513026+00:00",{"id":87,"slug":88,"title":89,"created_at":90},"045d1abc-190d-4594-8c95-91e2a26f0c5a","googles-2026-ai-agent-report-decoded-en","Google’s 2026 AI Agent Report, Decoded","2026-03-26T11:15:23.046616+00:00",{"id":92,"slug":93,"title":94,"created_at":95},"e64aba21-254b-4f93-aa21-837484bb52ec","kimi-k25-review-stronger-still-not-legend-en","Kimi K2.5 review: stronger, still not a legend","2026-03-27T07:15:55.385951+00:00",{"id":97,"slug":98,"title":99,"created_at":100},"30dfb781-a1b2-4add-aebe-b3df40247c37","claude-code-controls-mac-desktop-en","Claude Code now controls your Mac desktop","2026-03-28T03:01:59.384091+00:00",{"id":102,"slug":103,"title":104,"created_at":105},"254405b6-7833-4800-8e13-f5196deefbe6","cloudflare-100x-faster-ai-agent-sandbox-en","Cloudflare’s 100x Faster AI Agent Sandbox","2026-03-28T03:09:44.356437+00:00",{"id":107,"slug":108,"title":109,"created_at":110},"04f29b7f-9b91-4306-89a7-97d725e6e1ba","openai-backs-isara-agent-swarm-bet-en","OpenAI backs Isara’s agent-swarm bet","2026-03-28T03:15:27.849766+00:00",{"id":112,"slug":113,"title":114,"created_at":115},"3b0bf479-e4ae-4703-9666-721a7e0cdb91","openai-plan-automated-ai-researcher-en","OpenAI’s plan for an automated AI researcher","2026-03-28T03:17:42.312819+00:00",{"id":117,"slug":118,"title":119,"created_at":120},"fe91bce0-b85d-4efa-a207-24ae9939c29f","harness-engineering-ai-agent-reliability-2026","Harness Engineering: From Bridle to Operating System, The Missing Link in AI Agent Reliability","2026-03-31T06:36:55.648751+00:00",{"id":122,"slug":123,"title":124,"created_at":125},"7a09007d-820f-43b3-8607-8ad1bfcb94c8","mcp-explained-from-prompts-to-production-en","MCP Explained: From Prompts to Production","2026-04-01T09:24:40.089177+00:00",{"id":127,"slug":128,"title":129,"created_at":130},"116d5ee9-a4f1-4b5a-aac5-5d035dd22bbe","amazon-bedrock-agents-multi-agent-workflows-en","Amazon Bedrock Agents Gets Multi-Agent Workflows","2026-04-01T09:30:30.197685+00:00"]