Three models vote on what happened
I ran one job past three AI providers and had them vote. The voting was the easy part. Deciding what counted as agreement was not.

I ran one job past three AI providers and had them vote. The voting was the easy part. Deciding what counted as agreement was not.

I wrote the process document before doing the hard one. Then the hard one went through it and rewrote a step.

A model handed a bug will hand you back a plausible fix and a green test suite in about a minute. That tells you almost nothing.

Everyone writes up the modules that came out. The decisions that mattered were the four packages I decided to leave exactly where they were.

Twenty-seven packages, four marks each, out of ten. The interesting column wasn't the one I expected, and one row explained the whole programme.

I read the question my support bot had fluffed, gave the correct answer off the top of my head, and was wrong. The docs had fooled the person who wrote them.

Eleven variants of one shell script, on hundreds of laptops, launching pods into production. The language was never the problem, and it wasn't the fix either.

One of them was from me, testing it. I'd still publish the key, and the reason isn't cryptographic.

I was a minute from filing a fix for a feature that had shipped the day before. The reason I had not noticed turned out to be a rule of my own, doing precisely what I told it to.

A spec, a how-to and a README walk into a repo. Only one of them should still be there in six months.
