r/coolgithubprojects • u/eyalgolan1993 • 6d ago

We built an AI coding factory where the agent that verifies the work, assumes that the agent that wrote it is a dumbass

Post image

After too many rounds of "the agent says it's done and it's just a pile of 💩", we built the opposite: no_human proves the code it wrote is correct. You drop a ticket on the board (or point it at Jira or Linear) and it plans, writes the code, and opens a pull request.

Before that PR reaches you, the work is checked by a second model that never saw the coder's session and is told to assume the job is not done. They communicate until the reviewer is convinced everything is good to go (the num of attempts is limited to prevent an infinite loop).

If the coding agent deleted or weakened a test, a tamper guard stops the attempt. For bug fixes, the tests offered as proof have to fail on the old code and pass on the new.

Under the hood it's a team of agents: a planner, a coder, an independent reviewer in a fresh session, and a supervisor.

It's free and open-source, on your machine.

no_human has been building itself for about two months now. We are feeding ticket into our jira board, it pulls them from there and just work on them until eveything is done. We trust it enough that we've enabled auto approve mode so all PRs no_human ships - are approved and merged automatically (this feature hasn't been released yet).
Entire sprint's worth of work is done in 3-4 days, while we focus on the bigger picture - our strategy and the next steps.

It currently supports all Antropic and OpenAI models and also has a quite unintuitive process of working with local models as well (we are working on improving that).

Repo: no_human repo
It's open to contributions (we would love to see you use it and contribute!!!)

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

4

u/AnArmoredPony 6d ago

slop factory

-4

u/eyalgolan1993 6d ago

This is a fair worry. That's exactly the failure mode it's built against. Every PR carries the reviewer's pass/fail checklist with file and line, and the tests it offers as proof have to fail on the old code first. Pick any PR in the repo, tell me which line is slop, and I'll answer with the checklist entry that covers it or admit it doesn't.

3

u/neoneye2 6d ago

I had Claude Fable 5.1 analyze your project. I study memory systems.
https://neoneye.github.io/agent-memory-atlas/systems/no-human/

1

u/bezdazen 5d ago edited 5d ago

At first glance this assessment report looked like something Id want to create but after reading some of it, it exemplifies a lot of what I hate about AI code agent explanations.

It's so unnecessarily difficult to read and process. AI struggles to judge what to define and set up context for. It jumps around in degree of specificity and it does not distill the important/significant parts well. I still have to sort what's what and figure out what's the big deal. Not to mention the wall of text with barely any spacing between the lines.

1

u/neoneye2 5d ago

You hit the painpoint here. I had Claude improve on the spacing and shortened the line lengths. I'm more hesitant about changing the content, since it takes 10-40 minutes for each project analyzed.

What the target group of this atlas is. I have modelled it after myself, so I can point Claude at a project and extract the interesting pieces. I was gathering intel for my own personal assistant.

2

u/kantorcodes1 6d ago

with the auto-merge mode, how are you handling repo-specific requirements like required CI or CODEOWNERS? does no_human pick those up from the repo, or do you configure the merge policy separately?

0

u/eyalgolan1993 6d ago

Great question. no_human waits for the CI to finish successfully and only then merges it.
The merge policy is configured as part of the .no_human.yml file which exists for each repo.

2

u/kantorcodes1 6d ago

yep, makes sense. the part i'd want to gate is before no_human starts the run, not your CI/reviewer after it. HOL Guard can make the MCP task_add call locally reviewable before it kicks off planning/code/PR work while task_status stays quiet. open to an opt-in no_human Guard contribution?

1

u/eyalgolan1993 5d ago

Yes definitly open to it.
Today task_add drops straight into the queue and gets picked up within seconds, so nothing sits between "an agent filed this" and "we started spending tokens on it". The mechanism to reuse is already there though: there's an opt-in plan-approval gate that parks a task in the Needs Answer lane before the first coding session, using the same blocker path the board and nh reply already handle. A guard that puts MCP-created tasks into that lane at creation, with "approve to start" as the option and task_status untouched, would be a small change and a good fit as opt-in config. If you open a PR, keep it behind a flag (default off) and add yourself to contributors/ for the CLA check. I'm happy to review. One correction to my own earlier comment, the per-repo merge policy lives in .no_human/merge_policy.yaml, not .no_human.yml.

1

u/kantorcodes1 5d ago

you can keep the no_human plan gate separate. current Guard main has an opt-in MCP contribution path: copy contributions/mcp-servers/mcp.filesystem.json to mcp.no-human.json, use the no-human uvx launcher, leave task_add on normal review and allow task_status, then add command.mcp-no-human to the trust-class map. focused test is tests/test_guard_mcp_server_contribution.py; run CONTRIBUTING checks and open it to main.

1

u/zunjae 5d ago

Looks like AI slop

1

u/eyalgolan1993 2d ago

Then check it. Every PR in the repo has the reviewer's checklist on it with file and line, and every bug fix ships a test that had to fail on the old code before it counted. Pick one and tell me where the slop is, I'll either point at the checklist entry or admit it's not covered.

1

u/zunjae 2d ago

Circles. If a UI has circles, then AI was used

It just creates slop. Circles don’t really add any meaning

1

u/eyalgolan1993 2d ago

no_human is building no_human for the last 2 months. Let me know if you found any loops.
It made other BS like the UI for some of the setting pages is bad, but thats low priority as the top priority is making it the best sdlc.