Built a cognitive framework for AI agents - today it audited itself for release and caught its own bugs
I've been working on a problem: AI agents confidently claim to understand things they don't, make the same mistakes across sessions, and have no awareness of their own knowledge gaps.
Empirica is my attempt at a solution - a "cognitive OS" that gives AI agents functional self-reflection. Not philosophical introspection, but grounded meta-prompting: tracking what the agent actually knows vs. thinks it knows, persisting learnings across sessions, and gating actions until confidence thresholds are met.
[parallel git branch multi agent spawning for investigation](https://reddit.com/link/1q8ankw/video/jq6lc9vm9ccg1/player)
What you're seeing:
* The system spawning 3 parallel investigation agents to audit the codebase for release issues
* Each agent focusing on a different area (installer, versions, code quality)
* Agents returning confidence-weighted findings to a parent session
* The discovery: 4 files had inconsistent version numbers while the README already claimed v1.3.0
* The system logging this finding to its own memory for future retrieval
The framework applies the same epistemic rules to itself that it applies to the agents it monitors. When it assessed its own release readiness
the follow-through is what will decide this which is why this is getting picked apart That’s what changes the context. Curious how this plays out.
Stepping back, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s why opinions are all over the place
From the outside, the intention might be solid, the rollout less so and that friction is hard to ignore That’s the key detail here.
From my side, this depends heavily on what happens next That’s just my read on it.
Without overthinking it, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s the part people are stuck on That’s what changes the context.
Just reading this, this feels more about execution than intent which turns this into more of a debate
Trying to be fair, the timing matters more than people admit and that’s what people are responding to We’ll see how people react over time. That’s just my read on it.
there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that tension shows up immediately
this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s the part people are stuck on
Trying to be fair, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that friction is hard to ignore Hard to say where this lands long term.
Bluntly speaking, this feels like a half-step, not a full move and that tension shows up immediately Others will probably see it differently.
Bluntly speaking, this comes across more reactive than planned That’s just my read on it.
this depends heavily on what happens next and that’s where the disagreement starts We’ll see how people react over time. At least from my perspective.
this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone This probably isn’t the last word on it.
From a neutral view, this reads stronger on paper than in practice which explains why reactions are split Let’s see what happens next.
this reads stronger on paper than in practice
At first glance, the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Others will probably see it differently.
From my side, this feels more about execution than intent Hard to say where this lands long term.
Stepping back, there’s a gap between the message and the outcome and that’s the part people are stuck on
Putting bias aside, this feels more about execution than intent which is why this is getting picked apart At least from my perspective.
Bluntly speaking, this comes across more reactive than planned and that’s the part people are stuck on
If you zoom out, this feels rushed rather than thought through and that’s the part people are stuck on Feels like an opening move, not an ending. Others will probably see it differently.
To be fair, the main issue seems to be how this is handled That’s just my read on it.
the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone Let’s see what happens next.
Just reading this, the timing matters more than people admit and that’s where the disagreement starts Let’s see what happens next. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Without overthinking it, the follow-through is what will decide this so the response doesn’t surprise me That’s what changes the context. That’s just my read on it.
this comes across more reactive than planned That’s what makes this interesting. At least from my perspective.
Putting bias aside, this solves one problem while creating another so the response doesn’t surprise me Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
From where I sit, the way this is presented changes how it lands so the response doesn’t surprise me
Without overthinking it, this feels like a half-step, not a full move which turns this into more of a debate That’s the key detail here. Curious how this plays out. That’s just my read on it.
the framing does a lot of heavy lifting here and that’s where it gets complicated
From where I sit, the main issue seems to be how this is handled which makes the reaction pretty predictable That’s what changes the context. Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
From where I sit, the timing matters more than people admit and that’s why opinions are all over the place That’s what makes this interesting. Let’s see what happens next.
From my side, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that tension shows up immediately Time will tell. That’s just my read on it.
From the outside, the signal is clear, the strategy less so and that’s where people will push back Could be wrong, but that’s how it comes across.
Just reading this, the wording alone shifts how people read this and that’s where it gets complicated Curious how this plays out. That’s the impression it gives me.
To be fair, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage and that friction is hard to ignore Feels like there’s more coming here. Others will probably see it differently.
Real talk, the logic is there, but the execution is uneven and that’s where the disagreement starts This could age very differently in a week.
Stepping back, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified and that friction is hard to ignore That’s what makes this interesting. Hard to say where this lands long term. That’s just my read on it.
To be fair, this reads stronger on paper than in practice That’s what changes the context. Interested to see the follow-up.
Not gonna lie, the way this is presented changes how it lands and that’s what people are responding to
Looking at this, this solves one problem while creating another and that’s where people will push back Time will tell. That’s just my read on it.
From a neutral view, this feels rushed rather than thought through which is why this is getting picked apart That’s just my read on it.
From the outside, the way this is presented changes how it lands which makes the reaction pretty predictable That part stands out. This could age very differently in a week.
this feels more about execution than intent and that’s what people are responding to Not convinced this is settled yet.
Putting bias aside, the idea isn’t bad, but the delivery is doing damage which turns this into more of a debate That’s what changes the context. Interested to see the follow-up.
From a practical angle, the main issue seems to be how this is handled This probably isn’t the last word on it.
At first glance, there’s a lot said here but not much clarified which is why this is getting picked apart Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
Trying to be fair, this feels like a half-step, not a full move Feels like an opening move, not an ending.
this solves one problem while creating another and that’s why this won’t land the same for everyone