HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
gitsense
chat
JavaScript2025–2026
gitsense / chat

chat

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

2Distinct people
18Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
7GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month18 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-08-12 16:46:52 UTC to 2026-09-17 18:31:30 UTC.

02462025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 0 submissions, 7 commentsAug 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsSep 2026

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Aug 20252025-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC707
Sep 20252025-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC606
Oct 20252025-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20252025-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20252025-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20262026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20262026-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20262026-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20262026-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20262026-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20262026-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 20262026-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Aug 20262026-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20262026-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-10-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

18 sources
This is self promotional but I am working on making pi extremely enterprise ready with: https://github.com/gitsense/pi-brains/tree/staging The README is being worked on but the three videos should give you a good sense of what it can do. Pi is also what makes what I will demo in https://github.com/gitsense/chat/tree/update-readme possible. Since Pi exposes so much, it is very easy to build advanced tooling around it to help easily grok hundreds of tool calls to help you understand what they agent knows and what it has tried.
In DeepSeek-V4-Flash Update
If you include the following: https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/base-state/analyz... In your chat with AI, include the above file and let it know what your requirements are and I can create the analyzer and include it. You can also think of my tool as data prepping tool. So if you have a clear prompt the AI can review the file during analysis and remove all unnecessary code so the extracted metadata will the stripped text which you can use search against.
In Apache Burr: Build reliable AI agents and applications
Full Disclosure. I am the author of https://github.com/gitsense/chat > The idea behind the Agentic Data Stack is a higher-level integration to provide a composable software stack for agentic analytics that users can setup quicky, with room for customization. I agree with this. For those who have been programming with LLM, the difference between something working and not working can be a simple "sentence" conveying the required context. I strongly believe data enrichment will be one of the main ways we can make agents more effective and efficient. Data enrichment is the foundation for my personal assistant feature https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... Basically instead of having agents blindly grep for things, you would provide them with analyzers that they can use to search with. By making it dead simple for doma
Read the rest
in experts to extract 'business logic' from their codebase/data, we can solve a lot of problems, much more efficiently. Since data is the key, I can see why ClickHouse will make this move since they probably want to become the storage for all business logic. Note: I will be dropping a massive update to how my tool generates and analyzes metadata this week, so don't read too much into the demo or if you decide to play with it. I haven't really been promoting it because the flow hasn't been right, but it should be this week.
In ClickHouse acquires LibreChat, open-source AI chat platform
> Sonnet/Claude Code may technically be "smarter", but Qwen3-Coder on Cerebras is often more productive for me because it's just so incredibly fast. Saying "technically" is really underselling the difference in intelligence in my opinion. Claude and Gemini are much, much smarter and I trust them to produce better code, but you honestly can't deny the excellent value that Qwen-3, the inference speed and $50/month for 25M tokens/per day brings to the table. Since I paid for the Cerebras pro plan, I've decided to force myself to use it as much as possible for the duration of the month for developing my chat app (https://github.com/gitsense/chat) and here so some of my thoughts so far: - Qwen3 Coder is a lot dumber when it comes to prompting as Gemini and Claude are much better at reading between the lines. However since the speed is so goo
Read the rest
d, I often don't care as I can go back to the message and make some simple clarifications and try again. - The max context window size of 128k for Qwen 3 Coder 480B on their platform can be a serious issue if you need a lot of documentation or code in context. - I've never come close to the 25M tokens per day limit for their Pro Plan. The max I am using is 5M/day. - The inference speed + a capable model like Qwen 3 will open up use cases most people might not have thought of before. I will probably continue to pay for the $50 dollar plan for these use cases. 1. Applying LLM generated patches Qwen 3 coder is very much capable of applying patches generated by Sonnet and Gemini. It is slower than what https://www.morphllm.com/ provides but it is definitely fast enough for most people to not care. The cost savings can be quite significant depending on the work. 2. Building context Since it is so fast and because the 25M token limit per day is such a high limit for me, I am finding myself loading more files into context and just asking Qwen to identify files that I will need and/or summarize things so I can feed it into Sonnet or Gemini to save me significant money. 3. AI Assistant Due to it's blazing speed, you can analyze a lot data fast for deterministic searches and because it can review results at such a great speed, you can do multiple search and review loops without feeling like you are waiting forever. Given what I've experienced so far, I don't think Cerebras can be a serious platform for coding if Qwen 3 Coder is the only available model. Having said that, given the inference speed and Qwen being more than capable, I can see Cerebras becoming a massive cost savings option for many companies and developers, which is where I think they might win a lot of enterprise contracts.
In Cerebras systems raises $1.1B Series G
> A human can effectively discard or disregard prior information as the narrow window of focus moves to a new task, LLMs seem incredibly bad at this. This is how I designed my LLM chat app (https://github.com/gitsense/chat). I think agents have their place, but I really think if you want to solve complex problems without needlessly burning tokens, you will need a human in the loop to curate the context. I will get to it, but I believe in the same way that we developed different flows for working with Git, we will have different 'Chat Flows' for working with LLMs. I have an interactive demo at https://chat.gitsense.com which shows how you can narrow the focus of the context for the LLM. Click "Start GitSense Chat Demos" then "Context Engineering & Management" to go through the 30 second demo.
In Context is the bottleneck for coding agents now
I'm guessing you are referring to https://github.com/gitsense/chat/tree/main/data/analyze or https://github.com/gitsense/chat/tree/main/packages/chat/wid... The number is actually the order in the chat so 1.md would be the first message, 2.md would be the second and so forth. If you goto https://chat.gitsense.com and click on the "Load Personal Help Guide" you can see how it is used. Since I want you to be able to chat with the document, I will create a new chat tree and use the directory structure and the 1,2,3... markdown files to determine message order.
In Everyone's trying vectors and graphs for AI memory. We went back to SQL
You could instruct the LLM to classify messages with high level tags like for coffee, drinks, etc. always include beverage. Given how fast interference has become and given current supported context window sizes for most SOTA models, I think summarizing and having the LLM decide what is relevant is not that fragile at all for most use cases. This is what I do with my analyzers which I talk about at https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid...
In Everyone's trying vectors and graphs for AI memory. We went back to SQL
I haven't looked at the code, but it might do what I do with my chat app which is talked about at https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... The basic idea is, you don't search for a single term but rather you search for many. Depending on the instructions provided in the "Query Construction" stage, you may end up with a very high level search term like beverage or you may end up with terms like 'hot-drinks', 'code-drinks', etc. Once you have the query, you can do a "Broad Search" which returns an overview of the message and from there the LLM can determine which messages it should analyze further if required. Edit. I should add, this search strategy will only work well if you have a post message process. For example, after every message save/upddate, you have the LLM generate an overview. These are my instructions
Read the rest
for my tiny overview https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/data/analyze/tiny... that is focused on generating the purpose and keywords that can be used to help the LLM define search terms.
In Everyone's trying vectors and graphs for AI memory. We went back to SQL
I don't think you need to be big data to benefit. A major issue we have right now is, we want the coding process to be more "Agentic", but we don't have an easy way for LLMs to determine what to pull into context to solve a problem. This is a problem that I am working on with my personal AI search assistant, which I talk about below: https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... Analyzers are the "Brains" for my search, but generating the analysis is both tedious and can be costly. I'm working on the tedious part and with batch processing, you can probably process thousands of files for under 5 dollars with Gemini 2.5 Flash. With batch processing and the ability to continuously analyze 10s of thousands of files, I can see companies wanting to make "Agentic" coding smarter, which should help with GPU utilization and drive
Read the rest
down the cost of software development.
In Deploying DeepSeek on 96 H100 GPUs
> An interesting alternative I've been meaning to try out is inverting this flow. This is what I am doing with my AI Search Assistant feature, which I discuss in more detail via the link below: https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... By default, I provide what I call a "Tiny Overview Analyzer". You can read the prompt for the Analyzer with the link below: https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... In a nutshell, it generates a very short summary of every document along with keywords. The basic idea is to use BM25 ranking to identify the most relevant documents for the AI to review. For example, my use case is to understand how Aider, Claude Code, etc., store their conversations so that I can make them readable in my chat app. To answer this, I would ask 'How does Aider store conversations?' and
Read the rest
the LLM would construct a deterministic keyword search using terms that would most likely identify how conversations are stored. Once I have the list of files, the LLM is asked again to review the summaries of all matches and suggest which documents should be loaded in full for further review. I've found this approach to be inconsistent, however. What I've found to work much better is just loading the "Tiny Overview" summaries into context and chatting with the LLM. For example, I would ask the same question: "Which files do you think can tell me how Aider stores conversations? Identify up to 20 files and create a context bundle for them so I can load them into context." For a thousand files, you can easily fit three-sentence summaries for each of them without overwhelming the LLM. Once I have my answer, I just need a few clicks to load the files into context, and then the LLM will have full access to the file content and can better answer my question.
In Show HN: PageIndex – Vectorless RAG
> Do people really try to one-shot their AI tasks? Yes. I almost always end with "Do not generate any code unless it can help in our discussions as this is the design stage" I would say, 95% of my code for https://github.com/gitsense/chat in the last 6 months were AI generated, and I would say 80% were one shots. It is important to note that I can easily get into the 30+ messages of back and forth before any code is generated. For complex tasks, I will literally spend an hour or two (that can span days) chatting and thinking about a problem with the LLM and I do expect the LLM to one shot them.
In The Leverage Paradox in AI
> I wish people could be a bit more open about what they build. I would say for the last 6 months, 95% of the code for my chat app (https://github.com/gitsense/chat) was AI generated (98% human architected). I believe what I created in the last 6 months was far from trivial. One of the features that AI helped a lot with, was the AI Search Assistant feature. You can learn more about it here https://github.com/gitsense/chat/blob/main/packages/chat/wid... As a debugging partner, LLMs are invaluable. I could easily load all the backend search code into context and have it trace a query and create a context bundle with just the affected files. Once I had that, I would use my tool to filter the context to just those files and then chat with the LLM to figure out what went wrong or why the search was slow. I very much agree with the author of t
Read the rest
he blog post about why LLMs can't really build software. AI is an industry game changer as it can truly 3x to 4x senior developers in my opinion. I should also note that I spend about $2 a day on LLM API calls (99% to Gemini 2.5 Flash) and I probably have to read 200+ LLM generated messages a day and reply back in great detail about 5 times a day (think of an email instead of chat message). Note: The demo on that I have in the README hasn't been setup, as I am still in the process of finalizing things for release but the NPM install instructions should work.
In Why LLMs can't really build software

Showing the 15 most recent of 18 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.