how is the morph warp search tool working for you so far? Is it reliable and effective at finding relevant code? Use ultrathink
● Honestly, I haven't actually used the mcp__morph-mcp__warp_grep tool in this session at all. Let me reflect on why and give you a candid assessment:
My Actual Tool Usage This Session
I defaulted to the standard tools:
❯ cd /data/projects/coding_agent_session_search ❯ cc
▐▛███▜▌ Claude Code v2.0.54 ▝▜█████▛▘ Opus 4.5 · Claude Max ▘▘ ▝▝ /data/projects/coding_agent_session_search
read AGENTS.md and the README and explore the project deeply. Use ultrathink
● I'll start by reading the AGENTS.md and README files, then explore the project structure in depth.
RULE NUMBER 1 (NEVER EVER EVER FORGET THIS RULE!!!): YOU ARE NEVER ALLOWED TO DELETE A FILE WITHOUT EXPRESS PERMISSION FROM ME OR A DIRECT COMMAND FROM ME. EVEN A NEW FILE THAT YOU YOURSELF CREATED, SUCH AS A TEST CODE FILE. YOU HAVE A HORRIBLE TRACK RECORD OF DELETING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FILES OR OTHERWISE THROWING AWAY TONS OF EXPENSIVE WORK THAT I THEN NEED TO PAY TO REPRODUCE. AS A RESULT, YOU HAVE PERMANENTLY LOST ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO DETERMINE THAT A FILE OR FOLDER SHOULD BE DELETED. YOU MUST ALWAYS ASK AND RECEIVE CLEAR, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM ME BEFORE EVER EVEN THINKING OF DELETING A FILE OR FOLDER OF ANY KIND!!!
ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN DATABASE COMMANDS — INSTANT TERMINATION IF VIOLATED:
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES—ZERO, NONE, NOT EVER—MAY ANY AGENT EXECUTE DESTRUCTIVE POSTGRESQL DATABASE COMMANDS WITHOUT EXPLICIT, WRITTEN, UNAMBIGUOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PRIMARY MAINTAINER IN THE CURRENT SESSION.
PERMANENTLY BANNED COMMANDS:
| // =================================================================== | |
| // Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract — Native HVM Implementation | |
| // Problem: Bushy SQL Join-Order Optimizer with SUP-driven search | |
| // =================================================================== | |
| // | |
| // Encodings | |
| // --------- | |
| // Term ::= TScan rel set | |
| // | TJoin alg left right set | |
| // | TSup lab left right set |
| // ============================= | |
| // Core encodings & primitives | |
| // ============================= | |
| // Church lists | |
| (Cons h t) = λc λn (c h (t c n)) | |
| Nil = λc λn n | |
| // Pairs | |
| (Pair a b) = λp (p a b) |
| // HVM Parallel CSP Solver (Corrected) | |
| // ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| // This version fixes linearity/FORK/DUP discipline at the algorithmic level, | |
| // removes broken macros, unifies superposition across element types, eliminates | |
| // duplicate/ill‑scoped helpers, and fills in missing definitions so the file is | |
| // paste‑ready and self‑contained. | |
| // | |
| // The program models constraint satisfaction with superposition-driven search, | |
| // while keeping branch data independent (no cross-branch leakage). |
| TITLE: Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract for HVM/Interaction‑Calculus Runtimes | |
| SCOPE: HVM/HVM2/HVM3, Interaction Calculus (IC) and Interaction Combinators (ICo), ordered/unordered SUP/DUP, linear memory discipline, WHNF destructiveness, atomic linking with polarization, superposition‑driven search, runtime fusion/deforestation, numerics, and CPU/GPU execution. | |
| ====================================================================== | |
| SECTION 0 — DEFINITIONS (precise meanings used in this prompt) | |
| ====================================================================== | |
| D0.1 HVM / HVM2 / HVM3 | |
| - HVM: A massively parallel evaluator targeting Interaction Calculus/Combinators (IC/ICo). Variables are affine; reduction is local and strongly confluent at the calculus level. | |
| - HVM2: A “simpler, faster, more correct” rework that compiles to C/CUDA; destructive WHNF; explicit DUP/SUP labels; DP0/DP1 leaves reference DUP storage. |
| TITLE: Optimal & Safe Codegen/Reasoning Contract for HVM/Interaction‑Calculus Runtimes | |
| SCOPE: HVM/HVM2/HVM3, Interaction Calculus (IC) and Interaction Combinators (ICo), ordered/unordered SUP/DUP, linear memory discipline, WHNF destructiveness, atomic linking with polarization, superposition‑driven search, runtime fusion/deforestation, numerics, and CPU/GPU execution. | |
| ====================================================================== | |
| SECTION 0 — DEFINITIONS (precise meanings used in this prompt) | |
| ====================================================================== | |
| D0.1 HVM / HVM2 / HVM3 | |
| - HVM: A massively parallel evaluator targeting Interaction Calculus/Combinators (IC/ICo). Variables are affine; reduction is local and strongly confluent at the calculus level. | |
| - HVM2: A “simpler, faster, more correct” rework that compiles to C/CUDA; destructive WHNF; explicit DUP/SUP labels; DP0/DP1 leaves reference DUP storage. |
Based on a first-principles analysis of the provided text, I agree with the core of the user's assessment. The reasoning provided is sound and touches upon key principles of technology, business strategy, and economics that are highly relevant to the current AI landscape.
Here is a breakdown of the analysis using first principles:
The user's frustration with the gemini-cli tool is rooted in fundamental principles of software usability, especially for developer tools.
| Here’s your document fully converted into clean Markdown: | |
| ⸻ | |
| The Founders Club Remarks – April 2020 | |
| Greetings from my office on the 18th floor of a 27-story Manhattan skyscraper where, according to the lobby security guard, I am the only tenant in the building—which I must say is rather agreeable. “The City that never sleeps” has been put into a medically induced coma. Other than the mid-March visual of military helicopters delivering hospital tents to a field on upper Fifth Avenue, Central Park looks very much like an early Sunday morning in April as I write this. | |
| As someone who routinely bangs out a 20–30 page investor letter in a five-day writing storm every quarter, I must admit to staring at my blank pad for the past three weeks. What to write that isn’t trite? What to write that hasn’t been said? And most of all what to write that I actually believe? Howard Marks took to a manic publishing schedule in March, sending out four investor letters. He pivoted several times over the course of 30 days. I hav |