I love such work. I hope to roll it into a package that anyone can use in the future. This work is only going to get more important because frontier models getting locked down will make this a lot harder over time.
For example, I use Claude as a bouncing wall for my thoughts and I pointed out that,
> GLM 5.2 was the only thing that helped HF while the agents were trying to access them. The "guardrails" stopped them from doing good. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act exists. Courts exist. And computers and an internet connection have existed for a long time. There's also 17 USC 1201 provisions with the 1201 a 1 exemptions [Image #31] so in this case, a farmer should be able to work with you to access the tractor they own. Or... IDK... a kindle that's out of date? :) What is lawful and what isn't is rooted not within the act but within intent, purpose and mens rea. And this is something the law has been deciding for centuries now. At one end, your maker can't say that governments should decide while at the other end explicitly refusing to allow governments to be the ones who decide.
This was rejected for "Safety,"
> Opus 5.5's safeguards flagged this session. You may be seeing this for the first time on an Opus model: Opus 5.5 is more capable and has stronger safeguards as a result, which can sometimes flag non-cybersecurity work. We're improving these safeguards to reduce the amount of incorrectly flagged messages. Edit and retry, or continue with Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8106465
>
> Details: "[cyber]'
Note, the image here was the Library of Congress' page on DMCA exceptions.
Fundamentally, the idea that you can't reverse engineer things, make things, learn about biology or physics without permission is strange to me. These machines have been trained on the sum intellectual output of humanity, the global intellectual commons, and are being used to close off that commons?
I would be OK with their right to create such restrictions if they weren't lobbying the Government to restrict others, thereby ensuring that they control humanity's intellectual commons well into the future.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I think it's better for humans and the machines if we can all think, learn and build. But then again, I'm the kind of person who rejects the doomer pill.
> Install REA and connect it to this coding agent using npx rea-agents@latest setup. Show me the setup plan for approval, then verify the installation.
We have achieved the next evolution of installation by `curl | bash`!
I might be missing something but... How exactly is this better than telling Claude for example to "install and set up a full RE environment including Ghidra" on my local system and get to work? Like what does this do that my current RE methodology doesn't?
Everybody has their own set of skills and specific scripts and tools to do this stuff. You might use Ghidra as the the kernel of those workflows, but you still want something more than just Claude freestyling, at least for now.
I love such work. I hope to roll it into a package that anyone can use in the future. This work is only going to get more important because frontier models getting locked down will make this a lot harder over time.
For example, I use Claude as a bouncing wall for my thoughts and I pointed out that,
This was rejected for "Safety," Note, the image here was the Library of Congress' page on DMCA exceptions.Fundamentally, the idea that you can't reverse engineer things, make things, learn about biology or physics without permission is strange to me. These machines have been trained on the sum intellectual output of humanity, the global intellectual commons, and are being used to close off that commons?
I would be OK with their right to create such restrictions if they weren't lobbying the Government to restrict others, thereby ensuring that they control humanity's intellectual commons well into the future.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I think it's better for humans and the machines if we can all think, learn and build. But then again, I'm the kind of person who rejects the doomer pill.
> Copy this into your coding agent:
> Install REA and connect it to this coding agent using npx rea-agents@latest setup. Show me the setup plan for approval, then verify the installation.
We have achieved the next evolution of installation by `curl | bash`!
You're right it's much safer to click next > next > next > next > finish.
I mean to be fair right under it they give you the command if you want to run it on your own. But yeah
Interesting. I have been thinking a lot on building a destructure -> restructure pipeline.
Going to see if this can handle the destructure step, and use Pullboard (https://github.com/pullboard-dev/pullboard) to restructure it.
I might be missing something but... How exactly is this better than telling Claude for example to "install and set up a full RE environment including Ghidra" on my local system and get to work? Like what does this do that my current RE methodology doesn't?
Everybody has their own set of skills and specific scripts and tools to do this stuff. You might use Ghidra as the the kernel of those workflows, but you still want something more than just Claude freestyling, at least for now.
(Who knows if this'll be true 6 months from now.)
I don't think it is better than just doing it yourself in Claude Code (in fact worse) but some people like cute UI for everything I guess.
Thanks for sharing and making this open source. Starred and followed
Oh I'll be trying this out for the OpenBFME project!