Summarizer

Nice work. It strikes me there's more low hanging fruit to pluck re. context window management. Backtracking strikes me as another promising direction to avoid context bloat and compaction (i.e. when a model takes a few attempts to do the right thing, once it's done the right thing, prune the failed attempts out of the context).

Agree. I’d like more fine grained control of context and compaction. If you spend time debugging in the middle of a session, once you’ve fixed the bugs you ought to be able to remove everything related to fixing them out of context and continue as you had before you encountered them. (Right now depending on your IDE this can be quite annoying to do manually. And I’m not aware of any that allow you to snip it out if you’ve worked with the agent on other tasks afterwards.) I think agents should manage their own context too. For example, if you’re working with a tool that dumps a lot of logged information into context, those logs should get pruned out after one or two more prompts. Context should be thought of something that can be freely manipulated, rather than a stack that can only have things appended or removed from the end.

So I built that in my chat harness. I just gave the agent a “prune” tool and it can remove shit it doesn’t need any more from its own context. But chat is last gen.

Yeah, the fact that we have treated context as immutable baffles me, it’s not like humans working memory keeps a perfect history of everything they’ve done over the last hour, it shouldn’t be that complicated to train a secondary model that just runs online compaction, eg: it runs a tool call, the model determines what’s Germaine to the conversion and prunes the rest, or some task gets completed, ok just leave a stub in the context that says completed x, with a tool available to see the details of x if it becomes relevant again.

That's pretty much the approach we took with context-mode. Tool outputs get processed in a sandbox, only a stub summary comes back into context, and the full details stay in a searchable FTS5 index the model can query on demand. Not trained into the model itself, but gets you most of the way there as a plugin today.

Yeah, I'd definitely like to be able to edit my context a lot more. And once you consider that you start seeing things in your head like "select this big chunk of context and ask the model to simply that part", or do things like fix the model trying to ingest too many tokens because it dumped a whole file in that it didn't realize was going to be as large as it was. There's about a half-dozen things like that that are immediately obviously useful.

I generally do this when I arrive at the agent getting stuck at a test loop or whatever after injecting some later requirement in and tweaking. Once I hit a decent place I have the agent summarize, discard the branch (it’s part of the context too!) and start with the new prompt

> For example, if you’re working with a tool that dumps a lot of logged information into context I've set up a hook that blocks directly running certain common tools and instead tells Claude to pipe the output to a temporary file and search that for relevant info. There's still some noise where it tries to run the tool once, gets blocked, then runs it the right way. But it's better than before.

Totally agree. Failed attempts are just noise once the right path is found. Auto-detecting retry patterns and pruning them down to the final working version feels very doable, especially for clear cases like lint or compilation fixes.

I forget where now but I'm sure I read an article from one of the coding harness companies talking about how they'd done just that. Effectively it could pass a note to its past self saying "Path X doesn't work", and otherwise reset the context to any previous point. I could see this working like some sort of undo tree, with multiple branches you can jump back and forth between.

I do this with my agents. Basically, every "work" oriented call spawns a subprocess which does not add anything to the parent context window. When the subprocess completes the task, I ask it to 1) provide a complete answer, 2) provide a succinct explanation of how the answer was arrived at, 3) provide a succinct explanation of any attempts which did not work, and 4) Anything learned during the process which may be useful in the future. Then, I feed those 4 answers back to the parent as if they were magically arrived at. Another thing I do for managing context window is, any tool/MCP call has its output piped into a file. The LLM then can only read parts of the file and only add that to its context if it is sufficient. For example, execute some command that produces a lot of output and ultimately ends in "Success!", the LLM can just tail the last line to see if it succeeded. If it did, the rest of the output doesn't need to be read. if it fails, usually the failure message is at the end of the log. Something I'm working on now is having a smaller local model summarize the log output and feed that summarization to the more powerful LLM (because I can run my local model for ~free, but it is no where near as capable as the cloud models). I don't keep up with SOTA so I have no idea if what I'm doing is well known or not, but it works for me and my set up.