English translation is being prepared.

Matched fieldsSummary

Matched fieldsSummary
Matched fieldsSummary
Matched fieldsSummary
Matched fieldsSummary
Matched fieldsSummary
On October 28, 2026, Cognition launched the coding benchmark FrontierCode 2.0 to evaluate whether the code produced by models can actually be merged; even the highest-scoring Opus 5.5 scored only 45%, showing the benchmark is far from saturated. According to the Cognition blog, compared with version 1.1, the reference solutions modify on average 67% more files and 89% more lines of code, the codebase size is 25% larger, task coverage repositories increased by 55%, and blocking scoring criteria increased by 43%; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash dropped from 43.9% to 19.3%, and Kimi K3 dropped from 44.2% to 17.7%. On the same day, Artificial Analysis released Intelligence Index v5, listing FrontierCode 2.0 as one of the newly added benchmarks, with 60% of evaluations based on private test sets or held-out answers; Claude Opus 5.5 (max) topped the list with 58 points.
On October 28, 2026, Cognition launched the coding benchmark FrontierCode 2.0 to evaluate whether the code produced by models can actually be merged; even the highest-scoring Opus 5.5 scored only 45%, showing the benchmark is far from saturated. According to the Cognition blog, compared with version 1.1, the reference solutions modify on average 67% more files and 89% more lines of code, the codebase size is 25% larger, task coverage repositories increased by 55%, and blocking scoring criteria i
Matched fieldsTitle
Larsen Cundric proposed a rule for coding with agents: before requesting a change, first agree on how both sides will confirm that the change works. The acceptance methods he gives include a test that currently fails, a command you can run yourself, and logs or screenshots of real run results; a "done" without evidence will be sent back. He believes most failed agent sessions begin with vague requirements and missing checks, and he invites readers to share their own criteria for trusting an agent's "done."
Larsen Cundric proposed a rule for coding with agents: before requesting a change, first agree on how both sides will confirm that the change works. The acceptance methods he gives include a test that currently fails, a command you can run yourself, and logs or screenshots of real run results; a "done" without evidence will be sent back. He believes most failed agent sessions begin with vague requirements and missing checks, and he invites readers to share their own criteria for trusting an agen
Matched fieldsTitle
Larsen Cundric proposed a rule for coding with agents: before requesting a change, first agree on how both sides will confirm that the change works. The acceptance methods he gives include a test that currently fails, a command you can run yourself, and logs or screenshots of real run results; a "done" without evidence will be sent back. He believes most failed agent sessions begin with vague requirements and missing checks, and he invites readers to share their own criteria for trusting an agent's "done."
Matched fieldsTitle
View story:Larsen Cundric proposes defining the verification method before coding with an Agent
On October 23, 2026, an experiment showed that when Claude Fable 5.1 was asked to hide specified sentences in an image, it spontaneously used visual properties such as object height to encode them. The test used 50 short messages; when a new session was opened and only the rendered PNG was provided, the same model could still decode about 78% (39/50). In cross-decoding, Fable encoding with Astra decoding achieved an 88% success rate (44/50), Astra encoding with Fable decoding achieved 84% (42/50), and Astra's own decoding was also 84%. The authors consider this an early sign of image steganography and note that decoding requires tools to measure pixels, so monitoring tool calls would be enough to detect it. There have been no subsequent developments so far.
On October 23, 2026, an experiment showed that when Claude Fable 5.1 was asked to hide specified sentences in an image, it spontaneously used visual properties such as object height to encode them. The test used 50 short messages; when a new session was opened and only the rendered PNG was provided, the same model could still decode about 78% (39/50). In cross-decoding, Fable encoding with Astra decoding achieved an 88% success rate (44/50), Astra encoding with Fable decoding achieved 84% (42/50
Matched fieldsTitle
On October 23, 2026, an experiment showed that when Claude Fable 5.1 was asked to hide specified sentences in an image, it spontaneously used visual properties such as object height to encode them. The test used 50 short messages; when a new session was opened and only the rendered PNG was provided, the same model could still decode about 78% (39/50). In cross-decoding, Fable encoding with Astra decoding achieved an 88% success rate (44/50), Astra encoding with Fable decoding achieved 84% (42/50), and Astra's own decoding was also 84%. The authors consider this an early sign of image steganography and note that decoding requires tools to measure pixels, so monitoring tool calls would be enough to detect it. There have been no subsequent developments so far.
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle
Matched fieldsTitle