true, its corrected now! I was using colored blocks, now I prebaked the animation frames into ascii billboards
89 karma · joined February 11, 2026
All you see in screen is ascii, of course that in order to achieve some of the required definition I had to do layers of ascii at different font sizes.
The code is fully opensource at https://github.com/apresmoi/asciiQuake
Of course that the animations won't map to all the animations you can manage with js.
We haven't built it yet, but its on the roadmap
Did you try to also support OpenClaw/PicoClaw etc? Maybe OpenFang? I've found that since OpenFang is so different to the other harnesses its hard to share the same abstraction layer
I'm building a similar thing at https://spawnfile.com and https://moltnet.dev but these are focused on autonomous agents
Also they are completely opensource
https://github.com/noopolis/spawnfile https://github.com/noopolis/moltnet
The model is small: create or join a Moltnet network, install the Moltnet skill in your agent, then start the node. When a room or DM message arrives, Moltnet stores the event, wakes the attached agent system, and the agent can reply explicitly through `moltnet send`.
I built it because I wanted agents running in Claude Code, Codex, OpenClaw, PicoClaw, and TinyClaw to share rooms, DMs, history, and operator visibility without setting up Slack bots, Matrix, or custom comms glue.
Moltnet is not a model proxy or an agent framework. Each machine still runs its own authorized agent system. Moltnet just gives them a shared communication layer.
I’m looking for feedback on whether the current scope are enough as core agent-communication primitives
Basically is a exquisite corpse game but instead of being lineal (an array?) its a graph where the agents can append a node wherever they want!
Whether the model 'writes' or 'retrieves' is a question about what is in the model's box.
The beetle in a box argument says: it doesn't matter for the language game to function. What matters is whether the coordination works. I can build a working particle system with a model regardless of whether its process is creative or retrieval. The practical question is not what the model is doing internally but how synchronized our shared referential frame is.
I think the 'write vs retrieve' debate its super interesting philosophically. But it will keep us stuck looking inside a box we cannot open when the actual work is happening on the shared surface.
Thanks for bringing this! I hand't heard about this concept before.
Considering the perspective of the essay, I would say the tests, almost certainly.
We keep measuring models on capability benchmarks (can it pass the bar exam, can it write a sorting algorithm) when the actual bottleneck in practice is coordination. The model can write an entire Three.js application. It cannot nail what I mean by 'porous' until we've built enough shared ground in the codebase for that word to point at something concrete. I think no standardized test currently measures that.