Corporate blog post from **Block** (`block.xyz/inside`), unsigned — the displayed author is **"Block"** —, published on **August 18, 2026**, ~930 words, announcing **the open-sourcing of Berd**, Block's internal desktop application for working with agents, and laying out the design thesis that guided it: giving agents character *"not only through roles, instructions, skills, and tools, but through distinctive visual identities"* — hence the in-house animated characters, the *"Gloopies"*. The post starts from an observation of fragmentation (*"The technology was powerful, but the experience around it was fragmented"*) and a precisely named interface problem: *"the product gives people little sense of how the agent is configured, which context and tools are available to it, and how it differs from another agent"*. Two structuring contributions. **(A) A three-tier articulation**: **goose** remains the framework and *runtime* that holds the agent loop; **Berd** is the desktop client (projects, context, sessions, agents, configuration); the two communicate via the **Agent Client Protocol**. **Buzz** is designated as the follow-up, for when solo work becomes collaborative (*"Start alone, then go multiplayer"*). **(B) Six requirements handed off to Buzz**, stated as a takeaway: *"private space, durable context, recognizable agent identities, reusable skills, visible configuration, and clearer visibility into an agent's configured context, tools, and capabilities"* — a grid directly reusable for evaluating an agent client. The text itself distinguishes identity from capability: *"The avatars make the agent recognizable. Its role, skills, and tools make it useful."* No usage figures are produced and no license is named for the open-sourcing.
#Berd#Block#open source
**Aucun auteur nommé** : le billet est signé **« Block »** — le champ *Author* de la page porte le nom de l'entreprise. Publié le **18 août 2026** sur `block.xyz/inside` · le blog **corporate** · et non sur `engineering.block.xyz`.
Official product page from **DeepSeek**, published on **August 13, 2026**, **unsigned**, ~450 words, announcing the *developer preview* release of **DeepSeek Harness** (`dsh`) — a coding-agent harness **open source under the MIT license**, whose repository opened the same day. A three-word thesis, repeated in the title and in the repository description: *« Everything is a plugin »*, paired with a second promise, *« Every run is traceable »*. The page states the equation *« AGENT = MODEL + HARNESS »* and lists the pluggable capabilities — *« models, tools, skills, sessions, sandboxes, storage, loops, scheduling, and the UI »*. Four modes ship: **Standard** (full coding agent), **Code** (tools exposed via the *Code Mode SDK*, letting the model compose multi-step operations inside a TypeScript program), **Minimal** (*« two-tool coding agent with persistent bash and str_replace_editor »*, explicitly *« for benchmarking models in a minimal environment »*), and **Creator** (runtime inspection, in-memory plugin testing). The technical substance sits in the repository, not on the page: `docs/architecture.md` states a logging invariant — *« Model-visible means logged. Anything that reaches a model request must be reconstructable from the log, and a runtime invariant asserts it »* — and states that *« there is no privileged core to patch »*. The technical core is not DeepSeek's own: DSH is built on **Cordis** (the `cordiverse` project, a third party), **vendored** into `vendor/` with a manifest and a sync procedure, and the page places the *« Cordis paper »* at the same navigation level as "GitHub" and "Developer docs". Two LLM adapters ship — `dsh-llm-deepseek` and `dsh-llm-pi-ai`, a generic multi-provider adapter. The repository warns in capitals: *« THERE WILL BE COMPATIBILITY-BREAKING CHANGES »*, and `CLAUDE.md` specifies that `SESSION_FORMAT_VERSION` stays at `0` *« with no compatibility promise »*, with backends rejecting old on-disk formats. Timeline: DSH ships on the day **DeepSeek-V4-Pro reaches GA**, three days before a new API pricing schedule takes effect on **August 16, 2026 at 16:00 UTC**, with peak/off-peak rates and an off-peak discount of **−50%**.
#DeepSeek Harness#dsh#agent harness
**DeepSeek** (DeepSeek AI, laboratoire chinois) · en tant qu'institution. Page produit **non signée** : aucun auteur · aucun ingénieur mis en avant · aucun billet de blog ni papier technique associé. Le « nous » n'apparaît qu'une fois · en dernière phrase — *« We look forward to exploring the limits of intelligence with developers worldwide »*. Publiée le **13 août 2026**. La page est rendue en JavaScript : `curl` sur l'URL renvoie **HTTP 202 avec un corps vide** · le texte n'existant qu'après exécution du bundle. Deux documents de politique sont liés en pied de page — *Safe Use Policy* et *Data Processing Statement*.
Internal research report dated **August 12, 2026** consolidating, for presentation purposes, everything publicly documented about **Buzz** — **Block**'s humans + agents workspace, launched on **July 21, 2026** under the **Apache 2.0** license. It aggregates the two engineering posts already filed alongside the corporate announcement, the GitHub repository, press coverage, X, and **three independent hands-on accounts** that constitute the dossier's only non-self-reported data. **(A) A vocabulary gap documented by quotation**: **Jack Dorsey**'s launch tweet announces *"model-agnostic, decentralized, self-sovereign, and open source"*; Block's `ARCHITECTURE.md` states *"The relay is the single source of truth. All reads and writes flow through it. There is no peer-to-peer event exchange, no gossip, no replication."* The relay is therefore single and authoritative per community: Buzz's "decentralization" is an **organizational sovereignty** — self-hosting and portable identity — not network redundancy. **TFTC**'s formulation: *"Two of those three hold cleanly. The third needs a qualifier."* **(B) An asymmetry between demonstrated rigor and exploitation risk.** On one side, a rare degree of formalism for a v0.4.x/0.5.x: multi-tenant isolation specification **mechanized in TLA+**, authorization properties verified in **Tamarin**, a model-checked Git storage protocol, a hash-chained append-only audit log, 127 *event kinds*, NIP-01/42/98/34. On the other, channel membership is the unit of permission — *"channel membership is not fine-grained tool authorization"* (João Queirós) —, agents run in `--dangerously-skip-permissions` outside any sandbox on a human's machine, and observability is lacking: *"Buzz tells me an agent got a message. It doesn't tell me what happens next"* (DevTools Daily, which reports silent OOM kills). Block acknowledges it: *"the agent can do anything, and security rests entirely on restricting who can tell it what to do"*. **(C) The technical stack**, absent from the filed posts: **Rust** relay (Axum WS + REST), **Postgres**, **Redis**, **S3/MinIO** via Blossom, **Tauri + React** desktop client. Agent integration goes through **`buzz-acp`**, an **ACP** harness that plugs in goose, Codex and Claude Code and translates **ACP ↔ MCP**, plus **`buzz-agent`**, an in-house agent. The report corrects itself on one point: the *"+33% more work"* in Block's TL;DR is the **ratio of completed tasks (20 versus 15 out of 44)**, not a score gain — the score itself rises from 59.1% to 71.5%, i.e. **+12.4 points**.
#Buzz#buzz.xyz#Block
**Deep Research Veille Interne** — rapport non signé · produit le **12 août 2026** en préparation d'une présentation. Aucune URL publique ; source archivée dans `raw-data/`.
Landing page of the **official specification** of the **Agent Client Protocol (ACP)** (`agentclientprotocol.com/get-started/introduction`), accessed on **August 2, 2026**. This is not a dated article but a **living artifact**: the fiche is dated by its observation, not by a publication date. **One-sentence mission statement**: *« The Agent Client Protocol (ACP) standardizes communication between code editors/IDEs and coding agents and is suitable for both local and remote scenarios. »* **The stated problem** fits in three lines: coding agents and editors are **tightly coupled** and *« interoperability isn't the default »* — every editor must build a custom integration per agent, every agent must implement editor-specific APIs. Three named consequences: **integration overhead** (every agent-editor pair requires custom work), **limited compatibility** (an agent reaches only a subset of editors), **developer lock-in** (*« choosing an agent often means accepting their available interfaces »*). **The solution is explicitly modeled on LSP** — *« similar to how the Language Server Protocol (LSP) standardized language server integration »* — with the mutual benefit: an agent that speaks ACP works with **any** compatible editor, an editor that supports ACP gains access to the **entire** ACP agent ecosystem. **Two deployment modes, and this is the most underrated point**: **local** agents run as a subprocess of the editor over **JSON-RPC on stdio**, but **remote** agents are planned over **HTTP or WebSocket** — support declared *« work in progress »*, with ongoing collaboration with agentic platforms. **Technical lineage with MCP, stronger than mere complementarity**: ACP *« re-uses the JSON representations used in MCP where possible »*, adding types specific to agentic coding UX needs (**diff** display is the example given); the default format for readable text is **Markdown**, chosen so the editor is not required to render HTML. **Two governance and versioning observations** drawn from the page itself, not from surrounding discourse: the navigation exposes **v1 (Latest)** and **v2 (Draft)** — and **not an "ACP 1.2"** —, and the navigation bar links **Zed Industries *and* JetBrains** side by side, alongside an **ACP Registry**, **RFDs**, a **Community** section, **Publications**, **Updates**, and a **Brand** page. Official libraries announced: **Kotlin, Java, Python, Rust, TypeScript**, plus a community track.
#Agent Client Protocol#ACP#open protocol
**Projet Agent Client Protocol** — spécification collective · sans signature individuelle sur cette page. La barre de navigation du site lie deux organisations au même niveau : **Zed Industries** (à l'origine du protocole) et **JetBrains**. La présence d'une section **RFDs** (*requests for discussion*) · d'une page **Community** et d'un **ACP Registry** indique une structure de gouvernance ouverte plutôt qu'une documentation produit.
Tech-watch note by **Didier Girard** dated **August 2, 2026**, prompted by a colleague's question ("what is ACP?") to address a problem that is not terminological but **documentary**. **Three protocols compete for the acronym**, with no technical overlap whatsoever: **Agent Client Protocol** (client ↔ agent — Zed, August 2025, JSON-RPC 2.0 over stdio, Apache-2.0, "what LSP did for languages"), **Agentic Commerce Protocol** (agent ↔ merchant — OpenAI + Stripe, Sept. 29, 2025, competing with Google's **UCP** of Jan. 11, 2026 backed by **AP2**), and **Agent Communication Protocol** (agent ↔ agent — IBM Research / BeeAI, marginal but polluting searches). **The core of the note is not the disentangling but its observed failure**: the author searches "ACP" in their tech-watch knowledge base and gets **twelve results, all about the commerce protocol, zero about Zed's** — *"our watch agents had indexed the acronym without disambiguating it"*. Hence a knowledge-engineering rule: ***"a bare acronym is never indexed"*** — the entity is "Agent Client Protocol", "ACP" is **only an alias**, carried by three distinct entities. A structuring clarification follows (**MCP connects an agent to its tools, ACP connects a client to an agent; the two stack**), then the textbook case: **Buzz**, published by **Block** on July 21, 2026 under Apache-2.0 — a self-hostable workspace built on **Nostr**, where every human or agent participant is a **key pair** and every message, workflow step, or git push is a **signed event** in an append-only log. An entirely protocol-based architecture (`buzz-acp` an ACP harness over stdio, `buzz-agent` an ACP agent calling an LLM, `buzz-dev-mcp` an MCP shell + editing server), hence agent agnosticism: **Goose, Claude Code, and Codex** plug in through the same harness, and **Hermes** (Nous Research) connected to it without Block writing a single line — *"N+M instead of N×M, running in production"*. The note closes on the question of the **Claude subscription** versus third-party agents, with a five-stage 2026 timeline and a **design rule** that holds beyond this case: the line is not legal but **architectural** — ***"who is consuming, and on whose behalf"*** (an `owner-only` agent consumes your subscription on your behalf; an `anyone` agent in a shared channel routes your colleagues' requests through your account). **Verification carried out on this corpus**: the thesis holds, and more starkly than the note claims — not only is "Agent Client Protocol" **completely absent**, but the bare acronym `ACP` **is already typed as an entity** in two fiches, and the KB page `Agentic-Commerce-Protocol` **already attributes the protocol to Google** when it belongs to OpenAI + Stripe. The collision described is not a future risk: it has **already produced an attribution error** in the graph.
**Didier Girard** — auteur de la note. Écrit ici depuis la position de **praticien de la veille outillée** : le déclencheur est une question de collègue · le matériau principal est le comportement observé de sa propre base de connaissances · et la conclusion est une **règle de curation** adoptée en interne. Le texte alterne donc deux voix — l'explicateur de protocoles et l'ingénieur de la connaissance qui constate un défaut chez lui et en tire une norme.
**Block** announcement from **July 21, 2026**, signed by **Tyler Longwell**: **Buzz**, an *open source* and **self-hostable** channel-driven workspace where humans and agents share the same room — chat, search, automation, and **Git hosting** on a single server, built on **Nostr**, an open protocol for signed messages and portable identities. Opening thesis: *« Models can do the work now. Teams still need somewhere to do it together. The bottleneck moved from intelligence to coordination. »* Three engineering pieces. **(A) Agent identity.** The starting point is a refusal — to stop lending one's credentials to a bot: *« We have been letting bots play dress-up as us. It's weird. It's dangerous. »* Each agent gets **its own key**, its owner signs a **narrowly scoped authorization**, and the agent then signs its work with its own identity. The delegation cryptography is conventional; the design decision is less so: *« authorization does not erase authorship »* — the agent remains the author, its *credential* proving who authorized it and under what conditions. Immediate consequences: a leaked agent key is revoked without touching the human identity, and withdrawing the owner prevents the agent from reconnecting, with its active sessions needing to be terminated separately. **(B) Git on object storage.** The observation: *« In the past, Git has always had a convenient rate limiter: humans »* — a group of agents produces months of person-commits and CI in a single afternoon, with many simultaneous writers, on forges sized for human fingers. Buzz stores repositories as **immutable, content-addressed packfiles** plus a **single mutable manifest pointer**; a *push* writes the objects first, then advances the pointer via **conditional compare-and-swap**, that swap being the commit point — workspace events announce the change, they do not define it. The protocol is **specified in TLA+ and model-checked** (durability, reconstruction, concurrent pushes), with the bounded result depending on three explicit object-store guarantees, hence a **conformance suite** every backend must pass. **(C) Interoperability and privacy.** Claude Code, Codex, goose *« and any agent speaking Agent Client Protocol »* work inside Buzz; switching model or harness leaves the project's identity, permissions, and history intact. Telemetry and cancellation travel as ephemeral encrypted messages, memory and cost accounting as durable encrypted messages — *« the server sees routing metadata, not those payloads »*. Memory argument: *« A conventional forge preserves the diff and a green check. Buzz also preserves why the obvious fix was wrong. »* Anti-lock-in argument: if Buzz disappears, the identity and signed history remain verifiable, Git stays Git.
#Buzz#Block#agentic workspace
**Tyler Longwell** — *« Building multi-player AI at Block »* · auteur unique et signataire à la première personne. Publié le **21 juillet 2026** sur le blog Block Engineering.
Article by **Paul Sawers** published on **The New Stack** on **June 16, 2026**, about the **suspension by Anthropic** — *"on the very day it was scheduled to go live"* — of the billing split meant to separate **Agent SDK** usage from Claude subscription limits. **Anthropic's cited message**: *"We're pausing the changes to Claude Agent SDK usage described below. For now, nothing has changed."* **The article's contribution is not the announcement but the surrounding context**, in three circles. **Circle 1 — Anthropic's week**: on June 9, the release of **Fable 5 and Mythos 5**, the first generally available Mythos-class models with hardened cybersecurity safeguards; a few days later, a **US government export control directive** forces Anthropic to **withdraw both models for all its customers worldwide**. The pricing suspension is read as *"a little good news"* in this context. **Circle 2 — collateral damage from the timing**: companies that had already passed the change on to their own customers find themselves caught out; **Conductor**, a multi-agent coding tool built on the Agent SDK, has to issue a denial (*"Anthropic has delayed the subscription updates to Claude plans"*). **Circle 3 — the underlying tension, which extends beyond Anthropic**: a quote from **Boris Cherny** (head of Claude Code) in April, during an earlier restriction, stating that subscriptions *"weren't built for the usage patterns of these third-party tools"* — an admission that **flat-rate plans and open-ended agentic usage don't mix**; **GitHub** settled the matter the same way, removing in June **Copilot**'s flat-rate *premium requests* model in favor of **token-based billing**, despite protests. Added to this, **the same week**, a **proposed class action** was filed in a California federal court, alleging that **Max** tiers fall well short of the usage multipliers advertised for intensive coding sessions. Anthropic does not say when a revised approach will arrive, only that it *"works to update the plan to better support how users build with Claude subscriptions."* **The author's final take**: between government pressure on Fable and Mythos, a planned **IPO**, and **rumored price cuts at OpenAI**, Anthropic is trying to **keep its developer base on its side** — and the suspension is, for now, a means to that end.
#Anthropic#Claude Agent SDK#Claude subscription
**Paul Sawers** — journaliste tech · signe ici pour **The New Stack**. Registre de **presse spécialisée** : l'article ne relaie pas seulement l'annonce · il la replace dans une série (les changements de facturation successifs d'Anthropic) · la compare à un précédent sectoriel (GitHub Copilot) et l'articule à trois pressions concomitantes (export control, IPO, concurrence). Sourçage explicite et attribué — le billet de Zed · l'analyse de Matthew Diakonov · le post de Conductor · une déclaration antérieure de Boris Cherny.
**Zed** blog post signed by **Franciska Dethlefsen** (head of growth and marketing), published on **May 14, 2026** — the day after Anthropic's announcement — to answer Zed users' questions. **Subject**: starting **June 15**, Anthropic **splits Claude subscription billing into two pools** — one for its **first-party tools** (chat, the official Claude Code CLI), the other for **third-party agent and SDK usage** (anything going through **ACP**, `claude -p`, or a third-party tool). Usage via ACP **then stops drawing from the Pro or Max limits** and switches to a monthly **"Agent SDK" credit**: **$20 for Pro, $100 for Max 5x, $200 for Max 20x**. Once the credit is exhausted, usage continues **at standard API pricing** if overage is enabled — otherwise requests stop until the next cycle. **The figure driving the article**: subscriptions had until then subsidized agentic usage by a factor of **≈15 to 30×** relative to API pricing, and the new credits are billed **at full API rates** — hence *« for anyone using agents heavily, this is a major cost increase »*. **Three options are proposed**, in an order that reveals Zed's position: (1) keep the subscription by running the **official `claude` CLI in a terminal inside Zed** rather than via ACP — *« when the official claude CLI runs in the terminal, it uses your subscription's limits, not the new credit »*; (2) use Zed's built-in agent with the provider of one's choice (Zed-hosted models, API keys, Copilot, local Ollama, DeepSeek); (3) plug in **any ACP agent** — OpenCode, Codex, Factory, Cursor —, several of which still offer rate-limited subscriptions that subsidize heavy usage. **The underlying thesis**, and the real reason for the post: *« ACP is an open protocol… so that your editor is never locked into one provider's pricing decisions »*, with the explicit anticipation that *« this kind of change won't be the last »*. **The post carries an addendum dated June 16, 2026** announcing that **the change is suspended**: ACP, `claude -p`, the Agent SDK, and third-party applications continue to work with subscriptions **as before**, no separate credit to claim, limits unchanged, Anthropic revising its plan with advance notice announced. **The artifact is thus self-contradicting**: its most important content — the reversal — postdates its own publication date by a month.
#Zed#Anthropic#Claude subscription
**Franciska Dethlefsen** — head of growth and marketing chez **Zed Industries**. Le rôle est déterminant pour lire le texte : ce n'est pas un billet d'ingénierie mais une **communication de crise produit** · écrite le lendemain d'une annonce d'un fournisseur dont Zed dépend · à destination d'utilisateurs inquiets. La signature growth/marketing explique la structure (problème → options → réassurance) et le fait que l'argument protocolaire arrive en conclusion plutôt qu'en tête.