Woah I love the UI. Compared to the other coding agents I've used (eg. Claude Code, aider, opencode) this feels like the most enjoyable to use so far.. Anyone try switching LLM providers with it yet? That's something I've noticed to be a bit buggy with other coding agents

Bubble Tea has always been an amazing TUI. I find React TUI (which is what Claude Code uses) to be buggy and always have to work against it.

Agreed. Charm has a solid track record of great TUIs. While I appreciate a good DSL, I don't think React for a TUI (via ink) is working out well.

Yes, me too. The inline syntax highlighting is very nice. I hope CC steals liberally.

At this point, TUI's still feel like the most streamlined interface for coding agents. They're inherently lighter weight, and generally more true to the context of dev environments.

"Feels like" is a subjective measure. For example, Gemini CLI does feel inherently lighter than something like VS Code. But why should it? It's just a chat interface with a different skin.

I'm also not sure whether Gemini CLI is actually better aligned with the context of development environments.

Anyway—slightly off-topic here:

I’m using Gemini CLI in exactly the same way I use VS Code: I type to it. I’ve worked with a lot of agents across different projects—Gemini CLI, Copilot in all its LLM forms, VS Code, Aider, Cursor, Claude in the browser, and so on. Even Copilot Studio and PowerAutomate—which, by the way, is a total dumpster fire.

From simple code completions to complex tasks, using long pre-prompts or one-shot instructions—the difference in interaction and quality between all these tools is minimal. I wouldn’t even call it a meaningful difference. More like a slight hiccup in overall consistency.

What all of these tools still lack, here in year three of the hype: meaningful improvements in coding endurance or quality. None of them truly stand out—at least not yet.

> None of them truly stand out

I don't think any will every truly stand out from the others. Seems more like convergence than anything else

Or just keyword search new submissions for the word "delve"

Just add "don't use delve" into the system prompt.

"Delve" and "however"

>The AI Scientist automates the entire research lifecycle, from generating novel research ideas, writing any necessary code, and executing experiments, to summarizing experimental results, visualizing them, and presenting its findings in a full scientific manuscript.

I'd be curious how much of the experimentation process companies like OAI/Anthropic have automated by now, for improving their own models.

I’m wondering the same. If for example, to create GPT-5, OpenAI could credit some % of progress due to research conducted by LLMs with minimal/no human interaction, it would be a nice marketing piece.

Seems interesting, but how is it different than what GitHub already does?

I updated the site to include differentiators. Agree that most of it has already been offered by Github.