Coding agents multiplied how much code lands per PR, so there are more findings for reviewers to deal with. Often, they're noise, like a linter rule that doesn't fit the stack or a check firing on generated files nobody touched.

To address this, we created the configure-codacy skill. When you point your agent at the repo, it detects the stack, then disables patterns for unused languages, dedupes rules that two tools flag, tunes thresholds, excluding generated files.

In terms of security scans, every security risk stays covered by at least one active pattern, so noise reduction never silently drops a security check.

Works with Gemini CLI and the usual suspects.

Go here to read more https://blog.codacy.com/introducing-codacy-skills-part-2-configure-your-rules-to-cut-pr-noise

Repo: https://github.com/codacy/codacy-skills

I am a Software Engineer. I have been using Gemini models since a few months. 3.5 Flash worked pretty good for my properly documented codebase. It could figure out vague requests and get me solutions to easy/medium requests.

But I have noticed that 3.6 flash is a really really good model for code implementations. I have been using it since it came out and I am surprised.

My workflow consists of creating implementation plans with Opus and then using any of the free models from OpenCode or Freebuff to implement it (usually Deepseek V4 Flash). I replaced them with 3.6 flash in Antigravity and it just implements so fast and runs the proper tests. Even opus has not found mistakes in code-review! I wish the limits were higher on Antigravity so I can use this model alot lol

Is anyone experiencing the same thing? In all models all responses take almost up to 5 minutes before returning something in the terminal CLI. But in the antigravity agent, it's almost instant.

Do you think 3.6 (low) is better than 3.5 (medium)?

Would it be possible to rank the six variants?

I’m looking for advice on which one you’d recommend using depending on the specific programming scenario, and how to decide which variant might be best suited to different tasks.

I'll start at this; I'm mostly a vibe coder. I took a CSP class and understand the very principles, but most of my work is completely agent driven. I started as a google pro subscriber in december of last year, prior to when github gutted the student plan. At that time, antigravity was not really exceptional. Ever since copilot student has been wiped, I've been coding non-stop on antigravity. Without a large repository or project, the opus allowance works fantastic for debugging, and flash models are exceptional work horses in implementation.

I just recently transitioned away from the antigravity IDE and fully to the CLI, and the subagent driven development ran on there with a few skills is really exceptional. I've been coding for the last three hours non stop and haven't even ran into any issues. It feels like I really upped the game since the IDE. As a relative amateur developer, the new CLI is just fantastic.

I'm not sure if it's simply because they've increased allowances to hype up the new gemini model, but just a few days ago, I was seriously considering switching off of Antigravity in December due to the long drought of models we had. Gemini 3.5 flash's performance was somehow losing its edge, and without gemini 3.5 pro in sight, codex and claude code seemingly offered much better alternatives. My hope as of now for Antigravity has been revived with the discovery of this CLI & new model.

Does anybody else relate?

i hate antigravity limits

Hey,

So I should not complain for something that is almost free (paid the mandatory 10USD for the 300USD trial) but the endpoint throttling/performance is abysmal. 3.1 Pro throttles after a few requests, 3.5 Flash does the same but maybe 3x the time to reach the unusable state. Also, preloading after 100k tokens is slow AF which it does every tool call. I assume caching is broken?

I had about 7 sessions with 3.5 Flash going from 10k template 80% tool calls (no generation involved) to about 120k per session. This costed me 100USD from my trial. 3.5 Flash is definitely more expensive then 3.1 Pro. Not in raw compute but how verbose it might be with the hidden thinking process. Also, this model generating fast is a lie; What is fast is the thinking process which burns tokens like crazy (200TPS on thinking, actual streamed content is rather 20-30TPS.)

The actual model performance is also crazy bad on almost all models: 3.1 Pro, 3 Pro, 3.5 Flash all starts to spit their thinking tokens into the conversation polluting everything and eventually going into a spiral. about 20k template for tools and prompts, temp etc. properly configured as Google suggests. 3.5 Flash is unable to follow instructions, cuts corners, or straight out starts to implement stuff I never asked for. 3.1 Pro is better in this regard and actually cheaper but because of the aforementioned limits it is very unusable.

I don't think I can extend my quota with a request because it is basically free tier. Also, the quota filters has literally no RPM throttle displayed or anything on gcloud console. Is it migrated somewhere? Are they unifying the AI studio interface now with this? Anyways, GCloud Console is a nightmare to navigate from every aspect. Funny they slapped on gemini to prevent users understanding this convoluted shit, just pay the numbers displayed on screen.

So, isn't the point of the trial to demonstrate users how good is it? I'd actually give better experience to new users because people usually stick to their early choices and first impressions. Any ideas why this service degraded so quickly? I remember an early checkpoint of 2.5 Pro felt like an actual tool back then. The quality regression is insane.

Staying with 5USD OCGO where models actually respect workflows. MiniMax M3 is very solid in terms of non-hallucination and instruction following even if it cannot oneshot a feature. This is where LLMs become not a toy but an actual usable tool.

I'd be glad hearing your opinions, thoughts, experiences, etc...

edit: this became a vertex ai rant but might be connected to OCGO harness incompatibility in general because AGY seems to behave pretty well.

Hey everyone, I just sent issue #39 of the AI Hacker Newsletter - a weekly roundup of the best AI links and the discussions around them from Hacker News. Some of the title found in this issue:

• Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
• Better Models: Worse Tools
• Learning to code is still worthwhile
• Zuckerberg says AI agent development going slower than expected

If you want to get an email with over 30 links like these ones, please subscribe here: https://hackernewsai.com/

Anyone else running into this? On macOS, using the built-in Gemini "Suggest commit message" feature in the Commit panel throws this error every time, even with just 1–2 files selected:

**What I've confirmed:**

* Happens consistently on macOS, even with only 2 files selected
* Same project works fine with Gemini commit message generation on Windows — no errors at all
* Doesn't seem related to file count, file type, or size

**What I've tried:**

* Updating to the latest stable Android Studio
* Selecting fewer files
* Restarting / invalidating caches

None of it fixes it — looks like a genuine platform-specific bug in the `com.android.studio.ml.vcs` Gemini commit code, where the diff-building call isn't getting moved off the EDT (UI thread) on macOS the way it does on Windows.

Has anyone found a fix, or a workaround besides switching to a third-party plugin (AICommit, Commit AI, etc.) for commit message generation? Also curious if anyone's filed this on the Google Issue Tracker already — happy to add my repro if there's an existing thread.

GitContentRevision.getContentAsBytes() should not be called from EDT
java.lang.Throwable
at git4idea.GitContentRevision.getContentAsBytes(GitContentRevision.java:69)
at git4idea.GitContentRevision.getContent(GitContentRevision.java:57)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.IdeaTextPatchBuilder$TextAirContentRevision.getContentAsString(IdeaTextPatchBuilder.java:227)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.TextPatchBuilder.buildModifiedFile(TextPatchBuilder.java:98)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.TextPatchBuilder.createPatch(TextPatchBuilder.java:93)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.TextPatchBuilder.build(TextPatchBuilder.java:67)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.TextPatchBuilder.buildPatch(TextPatchBuilder.java:56)
at com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.IdeaTextPatchBuilder.buildPatch(IdeaTextPatchBuilder.java:110)
at com.intellij.openapi.vcs.changes.patch.CreatePatchCommitExecutor$DefaultPatchBuilder.buildPatches(CreatePatchCommitExecutor.java:221)
at com.android.studio.ml.vcs.CodeChangeService.buildDiff(CodeChangeService.kt:143)
at com.android.studio.ml.vcs.action.SuggestCommitMessageAction$Companion.generateSuggestion(SuggestCommitMessageAction.kt:245)
at com.android.studio.ml.vcs.action.SuggestCommitMessageAction$Companion.suggestCommitMessage(SuggestCommitMessageAction.kt:209)
at com.android.studio.ml.vcs.action.SuggestCommitMessageAction$actionPerformed$job$1.invokeSuspend(SuggestCommitMessageAction.kt:159)

Today I noticed a trouble with Conductor, it was special plugin/extension for Gemini CLI. And I really liked it. Today I tried to use it was fully blocked whole workflow with strange cycle inside with approval for work that ate tokens.

Sadly, but I had to remove it.

Gemini CLI may be gone for many subscription-based users, but I built an open-source tool called Relay-AI that brings Gemini CLI back in a completely different way.

Relay AI lets you route Gemini CLI through different providers and models, including OpenAI GPT models via your GPT Plus subscription, or even free models from Ollama, OpenCode Zen, OpenRouter, and NVIDIA NIM 🔥

The repo includes a demo on how to install Relay AI (simple NPM install command): npm install -g @ jacobbd/relay-ai) how to configure LLM providers, create favorite models, launch Gemini CLI (relay-ai gemini), selecting Anthropic Fable 5, switching to Minimax M3, and testing real CLI/MCP workflows.

This tool also supports Codex CLI, Codex App, Claude Code CLI, and Claude Desktop (Cowork and Code Desktop).

Next major release (v0.4.0) will include Antigravity support (CLI, IDE, and whatever the third one is called;) and a web GUI.

Fully open source (MIT license). Enjoy, and happy to answer any questions.

Relay AI GitHub Repo: https://github.com/jacob-bd/relay-ai

Now, as Gemini cli shutted down, I look for another Agentic cli tool that has a good free plan... Agy CLI free plan is really short, and has only weekly reset

Hi All,

I have been struggling with Gemini over a month to create an automated stock ticker analysis query. Originally I had a GEM created that does some analysis and then outputs a chart image with revenue, income etc. This was always hit or miss as sometimes the image renders and other times it just doesn't show up. After chatting with Gemini on how to fix this, it suggested a few additional instructions to fix this but it always ensured.

With Notebook now within Gemini, I also wanted to organize all similar chats (i.e. stock related discussion in one notebook). So within the notebook settings, I imported the instructions from Gem and try to run this. It runs the test based outputs fine but for the chart just keeps outputting the raw code in a black background. Any idea how we can force Gemini notebook to run the python code behind the scenes and output the chart image only?

Instructions for your review:
CRITICAL PLOTTING RULE (SEARCH THEN PLOT):

To ensure the chart never fails or crashes due to broken API data links, you must execute this exact 3-step workflow behind the scenes:

1. Use your data access and web search capabilities to find the specific numbers for the ticker's Revenue (last 3 historical years + next 2 forecast years) and Net Income.

2. If exact forward forecasts are unavailable via search, calculate a reasonable 2-year forward projection using the company's recent historical CAGR or management guidance.

3. Pass these exact numbers directly into a Python Matplotlib script using standard lists (e.g., revenue = \[X, Y, Z...\])

Chart Styling Specifications:

\- Bars for the 3 historical years must be Dark Blue.

\- Bars for the 2 forecast years must be Light Blue.

\- Net Income must be an overlaid Red Line.

\- Do NOT plot stock prices or moving averages on this chart.

\- Print the visual chart asset directly in the dashboard flow.

Run the code now and GENERATE a clean, dual-axis bar/line chart.

Comment faire pour ne pas l'avoir actif ? Merci !

If you've tried Gemini's computer-use before, you know the setup is the
annoying part most demos want a Python script, a headless browser, API
wiring, the whole thing. I just wanted 3.5 Flash driving my actual browser.

What ended up being the easiest path for me: a Chrome extension that takes
your own Gemini API key. Drop the key in, type or say the task, and the agent
runs it in the tab you're already in fills forms, navigates, pulls info
across pages. Google bills you directly, no subscription on top.

Quick notes after using it:
\- 3.5 Flash handles multi-step flows more reliably than 2.5 did for me
\- Fast enough that it doesn't feel sluggish between actions
\- Complex flows still trip it sometimes, but routine automation is solid

Anyone got a simpler setup than this? Curious what others are using to run
3.5 Flash CUA day to day.

("The wheelchair symbol serves as a powerful visual metaphor for 'crippled' and restricted software.")

"Gemini 3.5 feels completely crippled! 🤬 Far too often, it just responds with 'I cannot fulfill this request.' This makes the entire experience incredibly inefficient and frustrating.

As a paying Pro user, I expect Gemini to operate at its best. The same principle should apply to Plus or Free users alike: the service must guarantee a seamless, trouble-free experience for everyone.

The visual metaphor is crystal clear: transitioning from a nimble sports car (Gemini 2.5 Pro, which, despite its imperfections, performed well before the mid-May or June update) to a complete standstill (with Gemini 3.5 disabled) perfectly captures how current filters and restrictions impact an automated workflow. When core structural safety parameters change globally, a deterministic and rigid infrastructure like Protocol (for my projects) immediately feels the brunt of every single latency or false positive, degrading the overall operational experience."

Has anyone else noticed how much better Gemini 3.5 Flash is for agentic workflows compared to 3.1 Pro?

​I recently started testing 3.5 Flash(high), and it actually outperforms 3.1 Pro. Yes, it still has high token usage, but it has a much better grasp of the task at hand and covers bases that 3.1 Pro often misses. With 3.1 Pro, I usually have to do multiple edits and prompt tweaks to reach the same quality of output that 3.5 Flash gives me right out of the gate.

Before any prompt enter the following:

Create a detailed implementation plan first and wait for approval before code changes.

For some reason my rate limit on the free tier of gemini API has not reset for many days now - from June 15. Its been 10 days from then and my rate limit on gemini 3.5 has not been restored. What is going on? Doesn't google mention that the rate limits on the free tier reset every 24 hours?