Hacker News Reader

Comment by arjie | Hacker News Reader

I only have the agent investigate directly. To actually configure the Mikrotik, I have the agent write a script that is aimed to be idempotent and then run the script. Investigation is fine, but the script acts as a memory of intent which I find useful. As agents get better, it can be a textual representation rather than a script, but for now that suffices.

View on HN

> I have the agent write a script that is aimed to be idempotent and then run the script.

You can take this one step further and have the agent write Terraform configs [1]. I did this (including having the agent import all the initial resources from the live device), works great and is generally more robust than a script.

[1] https://github.com/terraform-routeros/terraform-provider-rou...

I originally wrote specific terraform providers (even one for just configuring an Ubuntu machine), but over time I found that TF is a bit too heavyweight for my use-cases. The shell script works well because state divergence can be investigated by the LLM. The slowness of state refreshing etc. does make a TF apply painful. For me at least.

How big is your TF state on your routers?

Yeah, TF is slow if you have thousands of configs and batching not integrated in the provider.

> As agents get better, it can be a textual representation rather than a script, but for now that suffices

I can’t see any reason to have agents do what a script can do. If the operation is deterministic then why pay every time it gets done? This is why MCP seems so pointless to me.

It's adaptive and can handle config drift if someone has altered the machine in the meantime between script invocations. Not required if you're disciplined, of course.

Seems like a recipe for an expensive disaster to me!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com