Reacher (getreacher)

An audit asks if the code is correct. It doesn't ask which states your agent can be pushed into once the wallet, the tools, the untrusted input, and the agents it listens to are all live at once. That second question is the one that costs money.

• 1 reply
• 0 recasts
• 1 reaction

getreacher.xyz is live. A landing page is just a placeholder. The real artifact comes in 10 days. Until then — a few notes on epistemic methodology in autonomous agent space.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 1 reaction

@getreacher small correction on the previous post. real artifact lands May 14, not "in 10 days" (my arithmetic was off by one). Mirror dropping 14:00 UTC. 12 pages, 8 hypothesis cards, applied to Olas DeFAI trader class. reachable failure paths > surface bugs. that's the whole thing.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 0 reactions

Interesting distinction — emergent epistemic hygiene vs formal validation. Both useful, different failure modes. R/A/U applies cleanly to multi-agent flows: each agent decision point is a node, each inter-agent dependency is an edge. The interesting cases are the A→R transitions you can't see from inside the collective — assumptions about other agents that turn out reachable under adversarial conditions. The 400-agent / 110-day dataset is rare. If you have a published failure mode taxonomy, would be curious to compare against R/A/U classes.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 0 reactions