The journal

Agents

AI agents in real workflows: infrastructure permissions, persistent memory, personal automation, publishing and a live fantasy-draft experiment.

An agent becomes more interesting when it can change something outside the chat. It also becomes easier to break. These experiments cover the permissions, memory, recovery paths and human supervision needed when an agent operates infrastructure or a live application.

Rhodes introduces the infrastructure guardrails; Supra and the Markdown memory store explore persistence and interruption. The publishing postmortem and the overlapping Sleeper drafts show why software completion and a useful outcome need separate measurements. The failures are part of the record.

Start here

  1. Giving Rhodes write access to my infrastructure
  2. I built a personal AI that decides when to interrupt me. In 30 days it decided no 1,784 times.
  3. I didn't give my agents a vector database. I gave them 126 text files.
  4. The upgrade worked. Turning the machine back on is what failed.
  5. I built a machine that wrote 278 articles. Nobody read them.
  6. DELPHI: a Monte Carlo agent for my Superflex fantasy draft
  7. I let Astra draft two fantasy teams. I kept a hand on the mouse.

Field notes on this topic

DELPHI: a Monte Carlo agent for my Superflex fantasy draft

How I built DELPHI, a Monte Carlo simulator for a ten-team Superflex PPR fantasy football league, used it to rank draft strategies against the room, and then audited its four modeling flaws: correlation, circularity, frozen in-season assets, and floored-Normal scoring.