<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Agents on malaev.dev</title><link>https://malaev.dev/en/tags/agents/</link><description>Recent content in Agents on malaev.dev</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://malaev.dev/en/tags/agents/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Compaction is cheaper than the context it removes</title><link>https://malaev.dev/en/posts/compaction-is-cheaper-than-the-context/</link><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://malaev.dev/en/posts/compaction-is-cheaper-than-the-context/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When a coding agent&amp;rsquo;s context fills up, it gets compacted: the history is
replaced by a summary and the session continues. Everyone who has watched this
happen mid-task has the same instinct — compact as late as possible. The
summary loses detail, and compacting throws away the prompt cache you have been
paying to build. Better to hold on.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Half of that is true. The other half is expensive, and I had the threshold set
wrong for weeks because of it.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>A memory that lives in the repository</title><link>https://malaev.dev/en/posts/agent-memory-in-the-repo/</link><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://malaev.dev/en/posts/agent-memory-in-the-repo/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A coding agent starts every session knowing nothing. You explain the project,
it does good work, the session ends, and the next one begins from zero. The
usual patch is a longer context window, but that only moves the wall. When the
context fills, it gets summarised — and a summary keeps decisions while losing
the reasons behind them. &amp;ldquo;We chose A&amp;rdquo; survives. &amp;ldquo;We rejected B because we
measured it and it was worse&amp;rdquo; does not. So the next session proposes B again,
and you pay for that experiment twice.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>