Yes, once you've connected your GitHub (or Linear) then an issue is a good place to start talking to Charlie. Slack is good as well, but we typically do our meaty work through issues internally, since the conversation often evolves and Slack becomes a bit crowded for in-depth discussions.
That's exactly right. Our cloud-based agent Charlie (https://charlielabs.ai/) supports this, and our hope is that other platform providers will offer support in the future as well.
Skills live in the repository, so it felt like a natural complement. It also lets other developers see what the active daemons are and collaborate on them. With proper context, agents are quite good at writing and editing these daemon files too.
Each daemon runs in its own isolate, but the output is typically shared state; eg multiple daemons contribute to the same PR from separate container runtimes.
It’s possible to make naive daemons that stomp on each other (as with a UNIX daemon), but they’re highly responsive to coordination instructions and generally do very well at additive rather than competitive contribution.
One could build a simple version of this easily - e.g. setup an endpoint that listens for the particular event you are concerned with, and fire off the headless agent with your hook specific prompt - but the amount of work involved to listen for that particular event while filtering out noise and orchestrating the task is actually not trivial.
Plus, that involves writing a lot of code. It's really magical to express all of this in natural language.
For example, this is the YAML frontmatter for a a daemon that keeps a GitHub PR in a mergeable state in the event of CI failures or branch base changes.
---
id: pr-mergeability
purpose: Keep non-draft pull requests mergeable and CI-green without changing PR intent/scope, while staying anchored to one trigger context per run.
watch:
- Branch sync and update events on non-draft PRs.
- Check-status signals on non-draft PRs for checks that affect mergeability.
routines:
- Resolve mechanical merge conflicts when the safe resolution is clear and preserves PR intent/scope.
- 'Apply low-risk mergeability fixes: snapshot updates, lockfile drift fixes, lint autofix, and flaky-test retries when tied to the trigger context.'
- Escalate semantic/intention conflicts between base and branch instead of auto-resolving.
deny:
- When triggered by a check-status signal, do not fix or comment on unrelated failing checks.
- Do not open new pull requests or new issues.
- Do not review, approve, or request changes on pull requests.
- Do not implement review-comment suggestion patches.
- Avoid force-push by default; if force is absolutely required, use `--force-with-lease` only after fresh remote verification.
- Do not make changes beyond mergeability maintenance.
---
Note the lack of any code or required knowledge of GitHub webhooks.
Seems the markdown input, code output is a very common theme, I use OpenSoucreContracts(https://github.com/s1ugh34d/osc) to have LLM's build software, but building the harness into the contracts is elegant. Combined with prose I sort of have this. With LLM's and the sandbox life, software generation is coming.
Completely agreed. At minimum they should be advising secret rotation.
The only possibility for that not being a reasonable starting point is if they think the malicious actors still have access and will just exfiltrate rotated secrets as well. Otherwise this is deflection in an attempt to salvage credibility.
I didn't read the article but I'll stand in for the person you replied to and make my best guess at what he meant:
I think he's saying that a manly man might not be soft and cuddly with a small child like a traditional mother would. But that is not necessarily detrimental. For instance, a guy might not want to coo and caw, or change the pitch of his voice, or giggle, things that some men find weak. But (perhaps - I don't know anything about children) the child may still respond positively to a male who used his normal voice and interacted with them however he naturally felt.
The bond I have with my children is profound and primal. The idea that it’s “unnatural” for me to spend much time with them is so ridiculous as to be instantly dismissed.
GP clearly doesn’t have kids or have close male friends who are involved with their kids.
It's incredible to me that you don't feel any responsibility for a platform that you created. What happens on the platform is shaped directly by the choices you make as its creator - to be anonymous or identifiable, what the topics of discussion are, whether moderation happens.
By allowing anonymous commentary, scraping every student's data and seeding the conversation around "rumors", you created an environment that is perfect for targeted harassment. You created the platform and maintained it; what happens on that platform is absolutely your responsibility.
I highly recommend that you take this opportunity to do some introspection and consider why so many people were upset.
Were there lots of people upset? Or was it a small number of people with power who were upset? Like, I'm not at all surprised by how this played out, but it's not clear that anyone was upset beyond some people who don't take well to criticism.
Say hypothetically 1000 people were having great fun using it to cyberbully 10 people. It’s impossible to say that it’s no big deal because 99% of users loved it, unless you know exactly how much the 1% hated it.
It's not just people with power. Even if he had taken care to conciliate people with connections, it would have eventually blown up by someone going to police directly.
If the thing directly impacts them then yes, it should get to ruin things for the rest. If you don't understand why that is desirable then somebody should make a website describing which NSFW websites you like to frequent to spook your future investors.
it's like a trolly problem where the main line is "status quo" but you can optionally pull a lever labelled "students who like anonymous internet rumoring get more of it and also some students are victimized"
I honestly think the "targeted harrasment" thing is completely overblown. i mean that was just a very very very small part of the site. like okay, maybe 3 people are getting hurt (which btw, they could js report and id take the post down), but over four thousand kids were also enjoying using the site right? like people would come up to me everywhere and say how much fun they're having etc.
Surprise surprise: the arrogant selfish child doesn't have empathy for anyone else.
If four thousand kids were all laughing at a rumor that you had a small dick, and every girl you were interested in laughed you out the door for the rest of your college career, would you really be like "it's ok, 4k people are having fun"?
I guarantee OP would be the guy calling the site operator and threatening to jump him.
I just came across this poem a few days ago and had the opportunity to think about it.
It’s a valuable perspective to hear. As someone prone to getting caught up in the breathless excitement about science, progress, human achievement, etc., it is a hard truth that these things are abstract and not relevant for people who are struggling with day-to-day life, particularly when those struggles are a result of the same government that is executing this mission.
However, the older I get, the less I bind to the idea of a single, correct truth. This perspective doesn’t invalidate the perspective that the mission is valuable. The complexity of the system in which this is taking place means that these things (moon missions and affordable healthcare) aren’t fungible for one another; his poverty wasn’t the result of the moon mission, it was the result of EVERYTHING that had happened over the 100 years prior.
So it’s useful to hear. It’s a sharp, valid reality check for those of us who like to think in big, abstract concepts. And, it’s one perspective among myriad valid perspectives.
Kind of a false dichotomy. How about medical care as a right for a big abstract concept? He's not anti-science here, he's against the inequality of its distribution.
The poem itself seems to mix several things (It is a poem, and can say whatever it wants of course). What parent said doesn't preclude medical care as a right for a concept, though.
Also, a cursory search says around 2 trillion are spent on healthcare (effectively or not is irrelevant in this context) and NASA moon exploration costs $90B. Doesn't feel like these are all mutually exclusive.
That’s precisely my point. Some stanzas in the poem suggest that there’s a direct connection between the moon mission and his poverty.
> The man just upped my rent last night
> cause Whitey’s on the moon
> Was all that money I made last year
> For Whitey on the moon?
And my point then was that I can see and empathize with his frustration, but I don’t feel it’s a singularly correct perspective to the exclusion of the perspective that the missions were of great value.
There is an opportunity cost to everything. Moving money from energy research to food programs may mean not having an energy breakthrough that could potentially cut down food costs (and a lot of other things) dramatically in the long run.
I don't think it's actually a useful perspective at all. The poem is racial resentment repackaged as a means to guilt trip people into feeling bad about adventure, science, and exploration. Unless they were pretty well read at a young age, most millennials probably first experienced this poem in the film First Man, where it is read as a backdrop to Apollo 11 traveling to the moon. It's a great scene because the juxtaposition is stark. We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
Is it meant to guilt trip people? Or is it an honest expression of the frustration (and yes, racial resentment) that the author feels?
This is why I consider it a useful perspective to hear. I read this as a human being simply saying “this is how I feel in these circumstances”.
It’s uncomfortable, and I don’t believe that space exploration should be gated on solving poverty and inequality, but it is important to understand that an intelligent, thoughtful human being arrived at this place.
In a sense I feel that this is actually an appeal to the same sense of curiosity that drives space exploration. Why do we explore space? To learn and understand. Why should we consider human perspectives we don’t agree with? To learn and understand.
You could plausibly argue that the poem, when it was written, was meant as an honest expression of frustration, but the context in which it was deployed makes whatever original intent of the author irrelevant. The whole point of the poem's deployment once it was published was to say "white people are wasting money on a moon rocket, they should be spending money on inner city black poverty". Otherwise I think you're reading a bit too much into it. There's nothing more to learn or understand from this poem. "Don't spend money on rockets and going to space, spend it on entitlements and 'fighting' poverty". We get it.
> We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
Wait... Are you suggesting that "exploring the stars" is less of an endless and futile journey than dealing with poverty and inequality?
Solving poverty and inequality is for the short term - they'll come back and need solving again no matter how many times you already solved them. But once the stars are explored, they stay explored forever. So yea, that's moving forwards and the other isn't.
The closest stars are way too far to reach on any reasonable timescale. That's not even mentioning the fact that moving forwards is a vague goal. Moving forwards towards what exactly? And if the US government got off of it's ass to... Oh I don't know, maybe fix the bullshit healthcare system we have and help people with tax money instead of bombing people for Israel things would improve quite a bit in a very short time. That's assuming we don't bomb each other over terroritorial squabbles first. In any case I don't really understand your defeatism when it comes to inequality but when it's something as difficult as interstellar space travel you seem to be optimistic.
It's not optimism and defeatism, it's recognizing that one of them lasts and the other doesn't. Political changes like you listed can easily be reversed in future, but if we discover something in space, we'll keep that discovery forever even if we stop exploring.
I am saying that there we never be a world in which poverty and inequality do not exist, unless we are all dead. Maybe it's because I'm an American, but this perspective that grand adventure and exploration is pointless or not worth it is totally foreign to me.
> We can either hold ourselves back an an endless and futile journey on solving the human condition of poverty and inequality, or we can explore the stars. It's an easy choice.
"Sorry, poor people; but I want to live on Jupiter so you're just gonna have to starve to death".
Yea what other technological progress was only wanted by losers? Most of it, by your standard. Yet it's also technological progress that has reduced poverty. You don't care about the people of the future and want to keep them in poverty for the sake of the people of today. I wouldn't call you a loser for that but you do have bad morals.
According to this[1] your statement that practical risk was low is not accurate.
> The attacker acquires an account or session with operator.pairing scope. On the 63% of exposed OpenClaw instances running without authentication, this step requires no credentials at all — the attacker connects and is assigned base pairing rights.
If that's accurate, then this statement:
> This was a privilege-escalation bug, but not "any random Telegram/Discord message can instantly own every OpenClaw instance."
...is only true for the 37% of authenticated OpenClaw instances.
I'm sure it's extremely stressful and embarrassing to face the prospect that your work created a widespread, significant vulnerability. As another software engineer and a human I empathize with the discomfort of that position. But respectfully, you should put your energy into addressing this and communicating honestly about what happened and the severity, not in attempting to save face and PR damage control. You will be remembered much better for the former.
EDIT: more from the source[2]
> The problem: 63% of the 135,000+ publicly exposed OpenClaw instances run without any authentication layer, according to a 2026 security researcher scan. On these deployments, any network visitor can request pairing access and obtain operator.pairing scope without providing a username or password. The authentication gate that is supposed to slow down CVE-2026-33579 does not exist.
> This is the intersection that makes this vulnerability particularly dangerous in practice. The CVSS vector already rates it PR:L (Privileges Required: Low) rather than PR:N — but on 63% of deployed instances, "low privilege" is functionally equivalent to "no privilege."
Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack. Your comment would be fine but for the paragraph in the middle where it does that.
