Skip to content

Show HN: Eforge – An Agentic Build System

github.com/eforge-build
3 pointsmsharkdiscuss
On HN

I've been calling eforge an agentic build system. Traditional build systems transform source code into artifacts - eforge transforms specifications into source code, then verifies its own output.

I built it because I was tired of keeping the orchestration logic in my head - spawning a separate session for a blind review, switching back to the implementing session to evaluate results, deciding what to build next. I had plugins for the individual pieces but the sequencing was still on me. I wanted a harness that handled the full loop, and one that was generally useful across projects, not hardcoded to a specific codebase.

You give it a specification - a prompt, a plan file, a PRD - and eforge assesses complexity against your codebase, selects a workflow (simple changes get a fast path, complex ones decompose into a dependency graph of sub-plans), builds in isolated git worktrees, reviews, and validates - all without supervision.

The way I actually use it: I plan a feature interactively in Claude Code, then run `/eforge:build`. The plugin picks up the plan, enqueues it, and a daemon takes over. eforge pulls plans off the queue, understands dependencies between them, executes in parallel where possible, and merges in topological order. Queued work is re-assessed before execution so changes from earlier builds are accounted for, not blindly applied to a codebase that has moved on. I check the results when builds finish - a web monitor dashboard tracks progress, cost, and token usage in real time. eforge builds itself this way.

Each build phase gets its own agent - planner, builder, reviewer, evaluator, fixer. The reviewer runs in a fresh context with no knowledge of how the code was written. Anthropic's engineering team independently arrived at the same pattern (https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/harness-design-long-ru...) - their finding: solo agents approve their own work; adversarial evaluation dramatically improves quality. An evaluator then applies per-hunk verdicts, accepting strict improvements while rejecting anything that alters intent.

Comments

No comments yet.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.