Simon Willison’s Weblog

The Unexpected Effectiveness of One-Shot Decompilation with Claude (via) Chris Lewis decompiles N64 games. He wrote about this previously in Using Coding Agents to Decompile Nintendo 64 Games, describing his efforts to decompile Snowboard Kids 2 (released in 1999) using a "matching" process:

The matching decompilation process involves analysing the MIPS assembly, inferring its behaviour, and writing C that, when compiled with the same toolchain and settings, reproduces the exact code: same registers, delay slots, and instruction order. [...]

A good match is more than just C code that compiles to the right bytes. It should look like something an N64-era developer would plausibly have written: simple, idiomatic C control flow and sensible data structures.

Chris was getting some useful results from coding agents earlier on, but this new post describes how a switching to a new processing Claude Opus 4.5 and Claude Code has massively accelerated the project - as demonstrated started by this chart on the decomp.dev page for his project:

Here's the prompt he was using.

The big productivity boost was unlocked by switching to use Claude Code in non-interactive mode and having it tackle the less complicated functions (aka the lowest hanging fruit) first. Here's the relevant code from the driving Bash script:

simplest_func=$(python3 tools/score_functions.py asm/nonmatchings/ 2>&1)
# ...
output=$(claude -p "decompile the function $simplest_func" 2>&1 | tee -a tools/vacuum.log)

score_functions.py uses some heuristics to decide which of the remaining un-matched functions look to be the least complex.

# 6th December 2025, 6:30 pm / prompt-engineering, games, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, ai, llms, coding-agents, claude-code

TIL: Subtests in pytest 9.0.0+. I spotted an interesting new feature in the release notes for pytest 9.0.0: subtests.

I'm a big user of the pytest.mark.parametrize decorator - see Documentation unit tests from 2018 - so I thought it would be interesting to try out subtests and see if they're a useful alternative.

Short version: this parameterized test:

@pytest.mark.parametrize("setting", app.SETTINGS)
def test_settings_are_documented(settings_headings, setting):
    assert setting.name in settings_headings

Becomes this using subtests instead:

def test_settings_are_documented(settings_headings, subtests):
    for setting in app.SETTINGS:
        with subtests.test(setting=setting.name):
            assert setting.name in settings_headings

Why is this better? Two reasons:

1. It appears to run a bit faster
2. Subtests can be created programatically after running some setup code first

I had Claude Code port several tests to the new pattern. I like it.

# 5th December 2025, 6:03 am / testing, til, python, pytest, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, claude-code, generative-ai, ai, llms

Django 6.0 released. Django 6.0 includes a flurry of neat features, but the two that most caught my eye are background workers and template partials.

Background workers started out as DEP (Django Enhancement Proposal) 14, proposed and shepherded by Jake Howard. Jake prototyped the feature in django-tasks and wrote this extensive background on the feature when it landed in core just in time for the 6.0 feature freeze back in September.

Kevin Wetzels published a useful first look at Django's background tasks based on the earlier RC, including notes on building a custom database-backed worker implementation.

Template Partials were implemented as a Google Summer of Code project by Farhan Ali Raza. I really like the design of this. Here's an example from the documentation showing the neat inline attribute which lets you both use and define a partial at the same time:

{# Define and render immediately. #}
{% partialdef user-info inline %}
    <div id="user-info-{{ user.username }}">
        <h3>{{ user.name }}</h3>
        <p>{{ user.bio }}</p>
    </div>
{% endpartialdef %}

{# Other page content here. #}

{# Reuse later elsewhere in the template. #}
<section class="featured-authors">
    <h2>Featured Authors</h2>
    {% for user in featured %}
        {% partial user-info %}
    {% endfor %}
</section>

You can also render just a named partial from a template directly in Python code like this:

return render(request, "authors.html#user-info", {"user": user})

I'm looking forward to trying this out in combination with HTMX.

I asked Claude Code to dig around in my blog's source code looking for places that could benefit from a template partial. Here's the resulting commit that uses them to de-duplicate the display of dates and tags from pages that list multiple types of content, such as my tag pages.

# 4th December 2025, 11:57 pm / ai, django, llms, claude-code, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, python, generative-ai, htmx

TIL: Dependency groups and uv run. I wrote up the new pattern I'm using for my various Python project repos to make them as easy to hack on with uv as possible. The trick is to use a PEP 735 dependency group called dev, declared in pyproject.toml like this:

[dependency-groups]
dev = ["pytest"]

With that in place, running uv run pytest will automatically install that development dependency into a new virtual environment and use it to run your tests.

This means you can get started hacking on one of my projects (here datasette-extract) with just these steps:

git clone https://github.com/datasette/datasette-extract
cd datasette-extract
uv run pytest

I also split my uv TILs out into a separate folder. This meant I had to setup redirects for the old paths, so I had Claude Code help build me a new plugin called datasette-redirects and then apply it to my TIL site, including updating the build script to correctly track the creation date of files that had since been renamed.

# 3rd December 2025, 5:55 am / uv, til, python, packaging, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, claude-code, generative-ai, ai, llms

Google Antigravity. Google's other major release today to accompany Gemini 3 Pro. At first glance Antigravity is yet another VS Code fork Cursor clone - it's a desktop application you install that then signs in to your Google account and provides an IDE for agentic coding against their Gemini models.

When you look closer it's actually a fair bit more interesting than that.

The best introduction right now is the official 14 minute Learn the basics of Google Antigravity video on YouTube, where product engineer Kevin Hou (who previously worked at Windsurf) walks through the process of building an app.

There are some interesting new ideas in Antigravity. The application itself has three "surfaces" - an agent manager dashboard, a traditional VS Code style editor and deep integration with a browser via a new Chrome extension. This plays a similar role to Playwright MCP, allowing the agent to directly test the web applications it is building.

Antigravity also introduces the concept of "artifacts" (confusingly not at all similar to Claude Artifacts). These are Markdown documents that are automatically created as the agent works, for things like task lists, implementation plans and a "walkthrough" report showing what the agent has done once it finishes.

I tried using Antigravity to help add support for Gemini 3 to my llm-gemini plugin.

It worked OK at first then gave me an "Agent execution terminated due to model provider overload. Please try again later" error. I'm going to give it another go after they've had a chance to work through those initial launch jitters.

# 18th November 2025, 8:52 pm / gemini, ai-assisted-programming, google, generative-ai, vs-code, ai, llms, coding-agents

The fate of “small” open source. Nolan Lawson asks if LLM assistance means that the category of tiny open source libraries like his own blob-util is destined to fade away.

Why take on additional supply chain risks adding another dependency when an LLM can likely kick out the subset of functionality needed by your own code to-order?

I still believe in open source, and I’m still doing it (in fits and starts). But one thing has become clear to me: the era of small, low-value libraries like blob-util is over. They were already on their way out thanks to Node.js and the browser taking on more and more of their functionality (see node:glob, structuredClone, etc.), but LLMs are the final nail in the coffin.

I've been thinking about a similar issue myself recently as well.

Quite a few of my own open source projects exist to solve problems that are frustratingly hard to figure out. s3-credentials is a great example of this: it solves the problem of creating read-only or read-write credentials for an S3 bucket - something that I've always found infuriatingly difficult since you need to know to craft an IAM policy that looks something like this:

{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [
        "s3:ListBucket",
        "s3:GetBucketLocation"
      ],
      "Resource": [
        "arn:aws:s3:::my-s3-bucket"
      ]
    },
    {
      "Effect": "Allow",
      "Action": [
        "s3:GetObject",
        "s3:GetObjectAcl",
        "s3:GetObjectLegalHold",
        "s3:GetObjectRetention",
        "s3:GetObjectTagging"
      ],
      "Resource": [
        "arn:aws:s3:::my-s3-bucket/*"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Modern LLMs are very good at S3 IAM polices, to the point that if I needed to solve this problem today I doubt I would find it frustrating enough to justify finding or creating a reusable library to help.

# 17th November 2025, 11:24 pm / open-source, ai-assisted-programming, nolan-lawson, generative-ai, ai, llms

How I Use Every Claude Code Feature (via) Useful, detailed guide from Shrivu Shankar, a Claude Code power user. Lots of tips for both individual Claude Code usage and configuring it for larger team projects.

I appreciated Shrivu's take on MCP:

The "Scripting" model (now formalized by Skills) is better, but it needs a secure way to access the environment. This to me is the new, more focused role for MCP.

Instead of a bloated API, an MCP should be a simple, secure gateway that provides a few powerful, high-level tools:

• download_raw_data(filters...)
• take_sensitive_gated_action(args...)
• execute_code_in_environment_with_state(code...)

In this model, MCP's job isn't to abstract reality for the agent; its job is to manage the auth, networking, and security boundaries and then get out of the way.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Most of my MCP usage with coding agents like Claude Code has been replaced by custom shell scripts for it to execute, but there's still a useful role for MCP in helping the agent access secure resources in a controlled way.

# 2nd November 2025, 2:46 am / coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, claude-code, generative-ai, ai, llms, model-context-protocol

Claude Code Can Debug Low-level Cryptography (via) Go cryptography author Filippo Valsorda reports on some very positive results applying Claude Code to the challenge of implementing novel cryptography algorithms. After Claude was able to resolve a "fairly complex low-level bug" in fresh code he tried it against two other examples and got positive results both time.

Filippo isn't directly using Claude's solutions to the bugs, but is finding it useful for tracking down the cause and saving him a solid amount of debugging work:

Three out of three one-shot debugging hits with no help is extremely impressive. Importantly, there is no need to trust the LLM or review its output when its job is just saving me an hour or two by telling me where the bug is, for me to reason about it and fix it.

Using coding agents in this way may represent a useful entrypoint for LLM-skeptics who wouldn't dream of letting an autocomplete-machine writing code on their behalf.

# 1st November 2025, 10:26 pm / filippo-valsorda, go, ai, claude-code, llms, coding-agents, security, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, cryptography

Introducing SWE-1.5: Our Fast Agent Model (via) Here's the second fast coding model released by a coding agent IDE in the same day - the first was Composer-1 by Cursor. This time it's Windsurf releasing SWE-1.5:

Today we’re releasing SWE-1.5, the latest in our family of models optimized for software engineering. It is a frontier-size model with hundreds of billions of parameters that achieves near-SOTA coding performance. It also sets a new standard for speed: we partnered with Cerebras to serve it at up to 950 tok/s – 6x faster than Haiku 4.5 and 13x faster than Sonnet 4.5.

Like Composer-1 it's only available via their editor, no separate API yet. Also like Composer-1 they don't appear willing to share details of the "leading open-source base model" they based their new model on.

I asked it to generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle and got this:

This one felt really fast. Partnering with Cerebras for inference is a very smart move.

They share a lot of details about their training process in the post:

SWE-1.5 is trained on our state-of-the-art cluster of thousands of GB200 NVL72 chips. We believe SWE-1.5 may be the first public production model trained on the new GB200 generation. [...]

Our RL rollouts require high-fidelity environments with code execution and even web browsing. To achieve this, we leveraged our VM hypervisor otterlink that  allows us to scale Devin to tens of thousands of concurrent machines (learn more about blockdiff). This enabled us to smoothly support very high concurrency and ensure the training environment is aligned with our Devin production environments.

That's another similarity to Cursor's Composer-1! Cursor talked about how they ran "hundreds of thousands of concurrent sandboxed coding environments in the cloud" in their description of their RL training as well.

This is a notable trend: if you want to build a really great agentic coding tool there's clearly a lot to be said for using reinforcement learning to fine-tune a model against your own custom set of tools using large numbers of sandboxed simulated coding environments as part of that process.

Update: I think it's built on GLM.

# 29th October 2025, 11:59 pm / llm-release, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, ai, llms

Composer: Building a fast frontier model with RL (via) Cursor released Cursor 2.0 today, with a refreshed UI focused on agentic coding (and running agents in parallel) and a new model that's unique to Cursor called Composer 1.

As far as I can tell there's no way to call the model directly via an API, so I fired up "Ask" mode in Cursor's chat side panel and asked it to "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle":

Here's the result:

The notable thing about Composer-1 is that it is designed to be fast. The pelican certainly came back quickly, and in their announcement they describe it as being "4x faster than similarly intelligent models".

It's interesting to see Cursor investing resources in training their own code-specific model - similar to GPT-5-Codex or Qwen3-Coder. From their post:

Composer is a mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model supporting long-context generation and understanding. It is specialized for software engineering through reinforcement learning (RL) in a diverse range of development environments. [...]

Efficient training of large MoE models requires significant investment into building infrastructure and systems research. We built custom training infrastructure leveraging PyTorch and Ray to power asynchronous reinforcement learning at scale. We natively train our models at low precision by combining our MXFP8 MoE kernels with expert parallelism and hybrid sharded data parallelism, allowing us to scale training to thousands of NVIDIA GPUs with minimal communication cost. [...]

During RL, we want our model to be able to call any tool in the Cursor Agent harness. These tools allow editing code, using semantic search, grepping strings, and running terminal commands. At our scale, teaching the model to effectively call these tools requires running hundreds of thousands of concurrent sandboxed coding environments in the cloud.

One detail that's notably absent from their description: did they train the model from scratch, or did they start with an existing open-weights model such as something from Qwen or GLM?

Cursor researcher Sasha Rush has been answering questions on Hacker News, but has so far been evasive in answering questions about the base model. When directly asked "is Composer a fine tune of an existing open source base model?" they replied:

Our primary focus is on RL post-training. We think that is the best way to get the model to be a strong interactive agent.

Sasha did confirm that rumors of an earlier Cursor preview model, Cheetah, being based on a model by xAI's Grok were "Straight up untrue."

# 29th October 2025, 8:45 pm / llm-release, cursor, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, generative-ai, ai, llms, parallel-agents, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming

SLOCCount in WebAssembly. This project/side-quest got a little bit out of hand.

I remembered an old tool called SLOCCount which could count lines of code and produce an estimate for how much they would cost to develop. I thought it would be fun to play around with it again, especially given how cheap it is to generate code using LLMs these days.

Here's the homepage for SLOCCount by David A. Wheeler. It dates back to 2001!

I figured it might be fun to try and get it running on the web. Surely someone had compiled Perl to WebAssembly...?

WebPerl by Hauke Dämpfling is exactly that, even adding a neat <script type="text/perl"> tag.

I told Claude Code for web on my iPhone to figure it out and build something, giving it some hints from my initial research:

Build sloccount.html - a mobile friendly UI for running the Perl sloccount tool against pasted code or against a GitHub repository that is provided in a form field

It works using the webperl webassembly build of Perl, plus it loads Perl code from this exact commit of this GitHub repository https://github.com/licquia/sloccount/tree/7220ff627334a8f646617fe0fa542d401fb5287e - I guess via the GitHub API, maybe using the https://github.com/licquia/sloccount/archive/7220ff627334a8f646617fe0fa542d401fb5287e.zip URL if that works via CORS

Test it with playwright Python - don’t edit any file other than sloccount.html and a tests/test_sloccount.py file

Since I was working on my phone I didn't review the results at all. It seemed to work so I deployed it to static hosting... and then when I went to look at it properly later on found that Claude had given up, cheated and reimplemented it in JavaScript instead!

So I switched to Claude Code on my laptop where I have more control and coached Claude through implementing the project for real. This took way longer than the project deserved - probably a solid hour of my active time, spread out across the morning.

I've shared some of the transcripts - one, two, and three - as terminal sessions rendered to HTML using my rtf-to-html tool.

At one point I realized that the original SLOCCount project wasn't even entirely Perl as I had assumed, it included several C utilities! So I had Claude Code figure out how to compile those to WebAssembly (it used Emscripten) and incorporate those into the project (with notes on what it did.)

The end result (source code here) is actually pretty cool. It's a web UI with three tabs - one for pasting in code, a second for loading code from a GitHub repository and a third that lets you open a Zip file full of code that you want to analyze. Here's an animated demo:

The cost estimates it produces are of very little value. By default it uses the original method from 2001. You can also twiddle the factors - bumping up the expected US software engineer's annual salary from its 2000 estimate of $56,286 is a good start!

I had ChatGPT take a guess at what those figures should be for today and included those in the tool, with a very prominent warning not to trust them in the slightest.

# 22nd October 2025, 6:12 am / perl, ai, claude-code, llms, vibe-coding, webassembly, ai-assisted-programming, tools, javascript, generative-ai, projects

Andrej Karpathy — AGI is still a decade away (via) Extremely high signal 2 hour 25 minute (!) conversation between Andrej Karpathy and Dwarkesh Patel.

It starts with Andrej's claim that "the year of agents" is actually more likely to take a decade. Seeing as I accepted 2025 as the year of agents just yesterday this instantly caught my attention!

It turns out Andrej is using a different definition of agents to the one that I prefer - emphasis mine:

When you’re talking about an agent, or what the labs have in mind and maybe what I have in mind as well, you should think of it almost like an employee or an intern that you would hire to work with you. For example, you work with some employees here. When would you prefer to have an agent like Claude or Codex do that work?

Currently, of course they can’t. What would it take for them to be able to do that? Why don’t you do it today? The reason you don’t do it today is because they just don’t work. They don’t have enough intelligence, they’re not multimodal enough, they can’t do computer use and all this stuff.

They don’t do a lot of the things you’ve alluded to earlier. They don’t have continual learning. You can’t just tell them something and they’ll remember it. They’re cognitively lacking and it’s just not working. It will take about a decade to work through all of those issues.

Yeah, continual learning human-replacement agents definitely isn't happening in 2025! Coding agents that are really good at running tools in the loop on the other hand are here already.

I loved this bit introducing an analogy of LLMs as ghosts or spirits, as opposed to having brains like animals or humans:

Brains just came from a very different process, and I’m very hesitant to take inspiration from it because we’re not actually running that process. In my post, I said we’re not building animals. We’re building ghosts or spirits or whatever people want to call it, because we’re not doing training by evolution. We’re doing training by imitation of humans and the data that they’ve put on the Internet.

You end up with these ethereal spirit entities because they’re fully digital and they’re mimicking humans. It’s a different kind of intelligence. If you imagine a space of intelligences, we’re starting off at a different point almost. We’re not really building animals. But it’s also possible to make them a bit more animal-like over time, and I think we should be doing that.

The post Andrej mentions is Animals vs Ghosts on his blog.

Dwarkesh asked Andrej about this tweet where he said that Claude Code and Codex CLI "didn't work well enough at all and net unhelpful" for his nanochat project. Andrej responded:

[...] So the agents are pretty good, for example, if you’re doing boilerplate stuff. Boilerplate code that’s just copy-paste stuff, they’re very good at that. They’re very good at stuff that occurs very often on the Internet because there are lots of examples of it in the training sets of these models. There are features of things where the models will do very well.

I would say nanochat is not an example of those because it’s a fairly unique repository. There’s not that much code in the way that I’ve structured it. It’s not boilerplate code. It’s intellectually intense code almost, and everything has to be very precisely arranged. The models have so many cognitive deficits. One example, they kept misunderstanding the code because they have too much memory from all the typical ways of doing things on the Internet that I just wasn’t adopting.

Update: Here's an essay length tweet from Andrej clarifying a whole bunch of the things he talked about on the podcast.

# 18th October 2025, 3:25 am / ai-agents, ai, llms, andrej-karpathy, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, agent-definitions

Just Talk To It—the no-bs Way of Agentic Engineering. Peter Steinberger's long, detailed description of his current process for using Codex CLI and GPT-5 Codex. This is information dense and full of actionable tips, plus plenty of strong opinions about the differences between Claude 4.5 an GPT-5:

While Claude reacts well to 🚨 SCREAMING ALL-CAPS 🚨 commands that threaten it that it will imply ultimate failure and 100 kittens will die if it runs command X, that freaks out GPT-5. (Rightfully so). So drop all of that and just use words like a human.

Peter is a heavy user of parallel agents:

I've completely moved to codex cli as daily driver. I run between 3-8 in parallel in a 3x3 terminal grid, most of them in the same folder, some experiments go in separate folders. I experimented with worktrees, PRs but always revert back to this setup as it gets stuff done the fastest.

He shares my preference for CLI utilities over MCPs:

I can just refer to a cli by name. I don't need any explanation in my agents file. The agent will try $randomcrap on the first call, the cli will present the help menu, context now has full info how this works and from now on we good. I don't have to pay a price for any tools, unlike MCPs which are a constant cost and garbage in my context. Use GitHub's MCP and see 23k tokens gone. Heck, they did make it better because it was almost 50.000 tokens when it first launched. Or use the gh cli which has basically the same feature set, models already know how to use it, and pay zero context tax.

It's worth reading the section on why he abandoned spec driven development in full.

# 14th October 2025, 9:26 pm / codex-cli, coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, claude-code, generative-ai, ai, llms, parallel-agents, model-context-protocol

Vibing a Non-Trivial Ghostty Feature (via) Mitchell Hashimoto provides a comprehensive answer to the frequent demand for a detailed description of shipping a non-trivial production feature to an existing project using AI-assistance. In this case it's a slick unobtrusive auto-update UI for his Ghostty terminal emulator, written in Swift.

Mitchell shares full transcripts of the 16 coding sessions he carried out using Amp Code across 2 days and around 8 hours of computer time, at a token cost of $15.98.

Amp has the nicest shared transcript feature of any of the coding agent tools, as seen in this example. I'd love to see Claude Code and Codex CLI and Gemini CLI and friends imitate this.

There are plenty of useful tips in here. I like this note about the importance of a cleanup step:

The cleanup step is really important. To cleanup effectively you have to have a pretty good understanding of the code, so this forces me to not blindly accept AI-written code. Subsequently, better organized and documented code helps future agentic sessions perform better.

I sometimes tongue-in-cheek refer to this as the "anti-slop session".

And this on how sometimes you can write manual code in a way that puts the agent the right track:

I spent some time manually restructured the view model. This involved switching to a tagged union rather than the struct with a bunch of optionals. I renamed some types, moved stuff around.

I knew from experience that this small bit of manual work in the middle would set the agents up for success in future sessions for both the frontend and backend. After completing it, I continued with a marathon set of cleanup sessions.

Here's one of those refactoring prompts:

Turn each @macos/Sources/Features/Update/UpdatePopoverView.swift case into a dedicated fileprivate Swift view that takes the typed value as its parameter so that we can remove the guards.

Mitchell advises ending every session with a prompt like this one, asking the agent about any obvious omissions:

Are there any other improvements you can see to be made with the @macos/Sources/Features/Update feature? Don't write any code. Consult the oracle. Consider parts of the code that can also get more unit tests added.

("Consult the oracle" is an Amp-specific pattern for running a task through a more expensive, more capable model.)

Is this all worthwhile? Mitchell thinks so:

Many people on the internet argue whether AI enables you to work faster or not. In this case, I think I shipped this faster than I would have if I had done it all myself, in particular because iterating on minor SwiftUI styling is so tedious and time consuming for me personally and AI does it so well.

I think the faster/slower argument for me personally is missing the thing I like the most: the AI can work for me while I step away to do other things.

Here's the resulting PR, which touches 21 files.

# 11th October 2025, 4:33 pm / coding-agents, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, ai, mitchell-hashimoto, llms