docs: replace the unmeasured ~1% claim with the measurement we can actually make#3154
Merged
Conversation
…tually make The blog post that landed in #3141 deliberately declined to use "~1% code surface" — the traditional implementation it would be measured against doesn't exist, so the ratio is a counterfactual nobody has measured. That left the site arguing two things at once: the blog saying the number isn't sourceable, the homepage and README still leading with it. Worse, concepts/metadata-driven.mdx headed a section "~100× Less Code" and then, two lines down, gave its own evidence: ~300 lines → ~30 lines. The heading was 10× its own example. So all four surfaces now carry the fact instead of the ratio. examples/app-crm — six objects, views, a dashboard, a lead-conversion flow, permission sets, actions, translations — is 31 files, 1,792 lines, ~16k tokens: the whole business system in about 8% of a 200k-token window. It ships in this repo, and both docs pages give the one-line command to recount it. This is a stronger claim, not a weaker one. "Less code" is an efficiency argument a competitor can copy; "the agent can hold the entire dependency graph, so it can answer *what breaks if I change this?*" is a capability argument that depends on the system actually being that small. Both docs pages already made the context-window point — it was buried under the invented multiple. - homepage: lead + `~1% code surface` chip → `Fits in an agent's context` - README: same, with the CRM measurement and the recount command - metadata-driven.mdx: section retitled off the ratio; per-feature 300→30 kept as an aside, app-level measurement made the headline - how-ai-development-works.mdx: "two orders of magnitude" → the measurement Not touched: www.objectos.ai still carries ~1% / ~100x across eight locales. That's a sister-site call, not a unilateral one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
github-actions
Bot
added
documentation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
为什么现在做
#3141 的 blog 刻意没用 "~1% code surface" —— 它要对比的传统实现不存在,比值是个反事实。结果站上出现了自相矛盾:blog 说这个数字没法引用,首页和 README 还在拿它打头。
而且核实时发现一处更硬的问题:
concepts/metadata-driven.mdx标题写 "~100× Less Code",两行之后它自己给的证据是 ~300 行 → ~30 行。标题是自己例子的 10 倍。换成能测的
examples/app-crm(6 对象 + 视图 + 仪表盘 + 转换流程 + 权限集 + 动作 + 翻译)= 31 文件 / 1,792 行 / ~16k tokens —— 整个业务系统,占 200k 窗口的 8%。它就在仓库里,两个文档页都给了复算命令:这是更强的主张,不是更弱的
"写得少"是效率论证,竞品能抄;"agent 能把整个依赖图握在手里,所以能回答改这个会坏什么"是能力论证,前提是系统真的那么小 —— 抄不走。
而且两个文档页本来就有 "The point isn't lines of code — it's fit in an agent's context window" 这句正确论证,只是被前面那个编造的倍数盖住了。现在让它站到前台。
改动
~1% code surface→Fits in an agent's context四处残留检查 = 0。数字已复算(1,792 行 / 31 文件)。
types:check✅ ·build✅没动的
www.objectos.ai 仍在 8 个语言里用 ~1% / ~100x —— 那是姊妹站的口径,不该单方面改。要不要同步,是维护者的决定(两站 hero 镜像句不受影响,proof strip 本来就不完全相同)。
🤖 Generated with Claude Code