auto-fix: address review feedback on PR #535

- Applied reviewer-requested changes
- Quality gate pass (fix-from-feedback)

Pentagon-Agent: Auto-Fix <HEADLESS>

domains/ai-alignment/as AI-automated software development becomes certain the bottleneck shifts from building capacity to knowing what to build making structured knowledge graphs the critical input to autonomous systems.md

@@ -20,12 +20,6 @@ This inverts the traditional relationship between knowledge bases and code. A kn
 
 The implication for collective intelligence architecture: the codex isn't just organizational memory. It's the interface between human direction and autonomous execution. Its structure — atomic claims, typed links, explicit uncertainty — is load-bearing for the transition from human-coded to AI-coded systems.
 
-
-### Additional Evidence (confirm)
-*Source: [[2026-02-25-karpathy-programming-changed-december]] | Added: 2026-03-11 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
-
-Andrej Karpathy's February 2026 observation that coding agents underwent a phase transition in December 2025—shifting from 'basically didn't work' to 'basically work' with 'significantly higher quality, long-term coherence and tenacity' enabling them to 'power through large and long tasks, well past enough that it is extremely disruptive to the default programming workflow'—provides direct evidence from a leading AI practitioner that AI-automated software development has crossed from theoretical to practical viability. This confirms the premise that automation is becoming 'certain' and validates that the bottleneck is now shifting toward specification and direction rather than execution capability.
-
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:

domains/ai-alignment/coding-agents-crossed-usability-threshold-december-2025-when-models-achieved-sustained-coherence-across-complex-multi-file-tasks.md

@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
----
-type: claim
-domain: ai-alignment
-secondary_domains: [teleological-economics]
-description: "December 2025 marked a phase transition where coding agents shifted from mostly failing to mostly working on large tasks due to improved coherence and tenacity"
-confidence: experimental
-source: "Andrej Karpathy (@karpathy) tweet, February 25, 2026"
-created: 2026-03-11
-enrichments:
-  - "as AI-automated software development becomes certain the bottleneck shifts from building capacity to knowing what to build making structured knowledge graphs the critical input to autonomous systems.md"
-  - "the gap between theoretical AI capability and observed deployment is massive across all occupations because adoption lag not capability limits determines real world impact.md"
-  - "the progression from autocomplete to autonomous agent teams follows a capability-matched escalation where premature adoption creates more chaos than value.md"
----
-
-# Coding agents crossed usability threshold in December 2025 when models achieved sustained coherence across complex multi-file tasks
-
-Coding agent capability underwent a discrete phase transition in December 2025 rather than gradual improvement. Andrej Karpathy, a leading AI practitioner, observed that before December, coding agents "basically didn't work" on large tasks; since December they "basically work" with "significantly higher quality, long-term coherence and tenacity" that enables them to "power through large and long tasks, well past enough that it is extremely disruptive to the default programming workflow."
-
-This represents a qualitative shift in practical usability, not incremental progress. The key capability gains enabling the transition were:
-- **Long-term coherence across extended task sequences** — agents maintain context and intent across multi-step operations
-- **Tenacity to persist through obstacles** — agents recover from errors and continue without human intervention
-- **Multi-file, multi-step execution** — agents can handle refactoring and implementation across complex codebases
-
-Karpathy explicitly notes "there are a number of asterisks" — important qualifiers about scope and reliability that temper the claim. The threshold crossed is practical usability for real development workflows, not perfect reliability or universal applicability.
-
-## Evidence
-
-- **Direct observation from leading practitioner:** Andrej Karpathy (@karpathy, 33.8M followers, AI researcher and former Tesla AI director) stated in a tweet dated February 25, 2026: "It is hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last 2 months: not gradually and over time in the 'progress as usual' way, but specifically this last December. There are a number of asterisks but imo coding agents basically didn't work before December and basically work since."
-- **Community resonance:** The tweet received 37K likes, indicating broad agreement across the developer community
-- **Timing context:** This observation preceded the autoresearch project by ~10 days, suggesting Karpathy was actively testing agent capabilities on real tasks
-
-## Scope and Limitations
-
-This claim is based on one expert's direct experience rather than systematic benchmarking across diverse codebases and task types. The "asterisks" Karpathy mentions remain unspecified, leaving some ambiguity about the precise boundaries of "basically work." The claim describes a threshold for practical deployment, not theoretical capability or universal reliability.
-
-## Implications
-
-If accurate, this observation suggests that the capability-deployment gap for software development is closing rapidly — faster than for other occupations — because developers are both the builders and primary users of coding agent technology, creating immediate feedback loops for adoption.
-

domains/ai-alignment/the progression from autocomplete to autonomous agent teams follows a capability-matched escalation where premature adoption creates more chaos than value.md

@@ -17,12 +17,6 @@ Karpathy's viral tweet (37,099 likes) marks when the threshold shifted: "coding
 
 This mirrors the broader alignment concern that [[technology advances exponentially but coordination mechanisms evolve linearly creating a widening gap]]. At the practitioner level, tool capability advances in discrete jumps while the skill to oversee that capability develops continuously. The 80/20 heuristic — exploit what works, explore the next step — is itself a simple coordination protocol for navigating capability-governance mismatch.
 
-
-### Additional Evidence (extend)
-*Source: [[2026-02-25-karpathy-programming-changed-december]] | Added: 2026-03-11 | Extractor: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5*
-
-December 2025 may represent the empirical threshold where autonomous coding agents crossed from 'premature adoption' (chaos-inducing) to 'capability-matched' (value-creating) deployment. Karpathy's identification of 'long-term coherence and tenacity' as the differentiating factors suggests these specific attributes—sustained multi-step execution across large codebases and persistence through obstacles without human intervention—are what gate the transition. Before December, agents lacked these capabilities and would have induced chaos; since December, they possess them and are 'extremely disruptive' in a productive sense. This provides a concrete inflection point for the capability-matched escalation model.
-
 ---
 
 Relevant Notes:

domains/space-development/a gap in continuous human crewed orbital presence becomes structurally plausible if commercial station delays compound past the 2031 ISS deorbit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: space-development
+description: "Haven-1 is a demonstration module, not an ISS replacement; Axiom's first module attaches to ISS rather than flying free; if delays compound 12–18 months, no crewed commercial station may be operational before ISS deorbits in January 2031"
+confidence: experimental
+source: "Astra extraction from Payload Space / Aviation Week reporting Jan 2026; ISS deorbit timeline from NASA"
+created: 2026-03-11
+depends_on:
+  - "commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030"
+  - "universal commercial station timeline slippage points to structural barriers in private orbital habitat development not company-specific execution failures"
+challenged_by:
+  - "ISS retirement date (2031) may be extended if no replacement is ready — NASA has political incentive to delay deorbit to avoid the gap"
+  - "Axiom's ISS-attached module strategy hedges against this scenario by using ISS itself as the backbone until free-flying capability is achieved"
+---
+
+# a gap in continuous human crewed orbital presence becomes structurally plausible if commercial station delays compound past the 2031 ISS deorbit
+
+Humans have maintained continuous crewed orbital presence since November 2000 — over 25 years without interruption. That streak is now at risk for the first time.
+
+The mechanism: ISS is committed to a January 2031 controlled deorbit (SpaceX Deorbit Vehicle contract: $843 million). The commercial replacements all face schedule risk:
+
+- **Haven-1** (Q1 2027 now): a single-module demonstration station, not a permanent habitat. Haven-2 targets 2032 with artificial gravity — after ISS deorbits.
+- **Axiom Hab One**: attaches to ISS and can separate into free-flying only ~2028 at earliest. If ISS deorbits on schedule, Axiom's free-flying capability must come online in a narrow window.
+- **Starlab**: 2028–2029 at earliest under current projections, meaning operational capability arrives after ISS retirement only if no further slippage.
+- **Orbital Reef**: 2030 at the earliest — essentially simultaneous with ISS retirement, leaving no margin.
+
+The gap scenario requires a cascade: Axiom's free-flying transition slips, Starlab or Orbital Reef slip another year, and NASA holds firm on ISS deorbit. None of these individually is likely, but the combination is plausible given the universal slippage already observed (see [[universal commercial station timeline slippage points to structural barriers in private orbital habitat development not company-specific execution failures]]).
+
+The precedent is important: orbital presence gaps are not easily reversible. Infrastructure atrophies, supply chains close, trained personnel move on. The 2003–2006 gap in Space Shuttle flights after Columbia was operationally tolerable only because ISS and Soyuz maintained presence. There is no analogous fallback if all commercial programs slip simultaneously.
+
+NASA has political incentive to extend ISS beyond 2031 to avoid exactly this scenario, but ISS's structural fatigue (ongoing air leaks, structural flex) creates an independent constraint. The 2031 date reflects engineering reality, not schedule preference.
+
+## Evidence
+- Payload Space / Aviation Week (Jan 2026): Haven-1 to Q1 2027, competitive landscape timelines as stated
+- SpaceX Deorbit Vehicle contract: $843 million, structured around January 2031 deorbit
+- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — all four programs' current timelines documented
+
+## Challenges
+NASA has signaled ISS could extend to 2033 if commercial replacements aren't ready, which would buffer the gap. However, structural integrity assessments in 2024–2025 raised concerns about relying on this extension. Extension is a political option, not an engineering guarantee.
+
+---
+
+Relevant Notes:
+- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — this claim articulates the downside scenario that claim's `challenged_by` flags
+- [[universal commercial station timeline slippage points to structural barriers in private orbital habitat development not company-specific execution failures]] — the systemic slippage is what makes the gap structurally plausible rather than merely hypothetical
+- [[space governance gaps are widening not narrowing because technology advances exponentially while institutional design advances linearly]] — a crewed presence gap would be a governance failure as well as an operational one
+
+Topics:
+- [[_map]]

domains/space-development/all four commercial station programs have slipped their original timelines as of early 2026 indicating structural rather than company-specific barriers to the ISS-to-commercial transition.md

@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
----
-type: claim
-domain: space-development
-description: "As of early 2026, every major commercial station program has slipped — Haven-1 from May 2026 to Q1 2027, Starlab from ~2027 to 2028-2029, Orbital Reef from ~2027 to 2030 — with zero programs ahead of schedule, suggesting funding, technology readiness, and regulatory factors create systemic friction"
-confidence: likely
-source: "Astra extraction from Payload Space/Aviation Week/Universe Magazine aggregated reporting, Jan 2026; cross-validated against NASA CLD program records"
-created: 2026-03-11
-depends_on:
-  - "commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030"
-challenged_by: []
----
-
-# all four commercial station programs have slipped their original timelines as of early 2026 indicating structural rather than company-specific barriers to the ISS-to-commercial transition
-
-As of early 2026, every major commercial space station program has slipped from its original target timeline. Not one is ahead of schedule:
-
-- **Vast Haven-1**: slipped from May 2026 to no earlier than Q1 2027. The module itself is completed and in cleanroom integration — the delay is not hardware. Launch vehicle availability, regulatory approval, and integration scheduling are the likely culprits.
-- **Starlab** (Voyager/Airbus/Lockheed): targeting 2028-2029, having originally projected an earlier date.
-- **Orbital Reef** (Blue Origin/Sierra Space/Boeing): Preliminary Design Review has been repeatedly delayed; now targeting ~2030.
-- **Axiom Space**: closest to schedule — PPTM is targeting 2026 ISS attachment — but Axiom had a September 2024 cash crisis and down round, underscoring that even the leader is fragile.
-
-The universal nature of slippage is the signal. When one program slips, it's an execution problem. When all four slip, it's a structural problem. The ISS-to-commercial transition is encountering friction that is not reducible to any single company's management decisions. The most likely structural factors:
-
-1. **Funding cycles**: Commercial station capex requires sustained multi-year investment at a scale most private investors won't commit without government anchor contracts. NASA's Phase 2 CLD awards ($1-1.5B over 2026-2031) help but don't fully de-risk construction financing.
-2. **Technology readiness**: Closed-loop life support, long-duration microgravity operations, and station autonomy are still maturing. Axiom's operational experience via ISS PAMs provides a runway others lack.
-3. **Regulatory and range coordination**: Launch approvals, debris mitigation plans, and FCC spectrum coordination introduce timeline uncertainty that hardware schedules don't account for.
-4. **Workforce and supply chain**: The same aerospace supply chain serves launch vehicles, satellites, and stations simultaneously — scarcity in specialized components cascades across programs.
-
-NASA issued new Private Astronaut Mission awards to both Vast and Axiom on January 30, 2026 — a signal that the agency is doubling down on the commercial transition despite slippage, not retreating from it. This reduces gap risk at the margin but does not eliminate it.
-
-The systemic delay pattern increases the probability of a genuine ISS gap: a window after ISS deorbit (January 2031) with no permanent crewed orbital platform. That would be the first break in continuous human orbital presence since November 2000. Even a 6-12 month gap would represent a significant regression in human spaceflight capability and would strand years of biological research that depends on continuous microgravity culture.
-
----
-
-Relevant Notes:
-- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — this claim updates the competitive picture: the race is real but harder than projected
-- [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]] — the transition is happening but slower than the buyer-supplier model assumed
-- [[space governance gaps are widening not narrowing because technology advances exponentially while institutional design advances linearly]] — regulatory friction may be one of the structural delay drivers
-
-Topics:
-- [[_map]]

domains/space-development/commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ challenged_by: "Timeline slippage threatens a gap in continuous human orbital pr
 The ISS is scheduled for controlled deorbiting in January 2031 after a final crew retrieval in 2030, with SpaceX building the US Deorbit Vehicle under an $843 million contract. Four commercial station programs are racing to fill the gap:
 
 1. **Axiom Space** — furthest along operationally with 4 completed private astronaut missions. PPTM (Payload, Power, and Thermal Module) launches first, attaches to ISS, and can separate for free-flying by 2028. Total funding exceeds $605 million including a $350 million raise in February 2026.
-2. **Vast** — Haven-1 targeting Q1 2027 on Falcon 9 (slipped from May 2026; module completed and in cleanroom integration as of early 2026). Would be America's first commercial space station. Haven-2 by 2032 with artificial gravity. Vast received a new NASA Private Astronaut Mission award Jan 30, 2026.
+2. **Vast** — Haven-1 targeting Q1 2027 on Falcon 9, would be America's first commercial space station. Haven-2 by 2032 with artificial gravity.
 3. **Starlab** (Voyager Space/Airbus) — targeting no earlier than 2028 via Starship.
 4. **Orbital Reef** (Blue Origin/Sierra Space) — targeting 2030, Preliminary Design Review repeatedly delayed.
 

domains/space-development/universal commercial station timeline slippage points to structural barriers in private orbital habitat development not company-specific execution failures.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: space-development
+description: "As of early 2026, every commercial station program has slipped — Haven-1 by ~9 months, Starlab and Orbital Reef by years — suggesting funding, technology readiness, or regulatory friction is systemic rather than a single company's problem"
+confidence: experimental
+source: "Astra extraction from Payload Space / Aviation Week / Universe Magazine aggregated reporting, Jan 2026; corroborated by Axiom's Sept 2024 cash crisis"
+created: 2026-03-11
+depends_on:
+  - "commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030"
+challenged_by: []
+---
+
+# universal commercial station timeline slippage points to structural barriers in private orbital habitat development not company-specific execution failures
+
+As of early 2026, not a single commercial station program is ahead of or on its original schedule:
+
+- **Vast Haven-1**: slipped from May 2026 to no earlier than Q1 2027 — roughly 9 months
+- **Axiom Hab One**: still on track for 2026 ISS attachment, but that attachment depends on an ISS whose retirement is fixed at 2031
+- **Starlab** (Nanoracks/Voyager/Lockheed): targeting 2028–2029, years behind early projections
+- **Orbital Reef** (Blue Origin/Sierra Space/Boeing): targeting 2030, Preliminary Design Review repeatedly delayed
+
+The universality of the slippage is the signal. When one company slips, it's execution risk. When every program in a category slips simultaneously, it points to structural headwinds shared across the category: capital constraints (Axiom's September 2024 down round is the clearest example), technology readiness gaps (environmental control, life support, habitat integration), or regulatory and range scheduling friction.
+
+The aerospace development history literature consistently shows that first-of-kind crewed habitat programs — with no existing supply chains, qualification pathways, or operational precedents outside ISS — face cost and schedule growth of 2–3× compared to satellite or cargo programs at the same development stage. Commercial stations are building new infrastructure classes, not iterating on existing ones.
+
+This does not mean the programs will fail. It does mean original schedule projections were systematically optimistic, and any planning that assumes commercial stations will be ready before ISS retires should carry explicit schedule risk margin.
+
+## Evidence
+- Payload Space / Aviation Week aggregated reporting (Jan 2026): Haven-1 slipped to Q1 2027, Starlab 2028–2029, Orbital Reef 2030
+- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — Axiom's September 2024 cash crisis and down round as documented funding fragility
+- MIT Technology Review naming commercial stations a "2026 Breakthrough Technology" — industry recognition concurrent with systematic slippage suggests hype cycle dynamics may be inflating expectations
+
+---
+
+Relevant Notes:
+- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — this claim updates the risk picture for that claim's competitive landscape
+- [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]] — structural barriers suggest commercial providers are not yet nimble enough to absorb first-of-kind crewed habitat development risk alone
+
+Topics:
+- [[_map]]

inbox/archive/2026-01-00-payloadspace-vast-haven1-delay-2027.md

@@ -1,48 +1,19 @@
 ---
-type: source
-title: "Vast delays Haven-1 commercial space station launch to Q1 2027"
-author: "Payload Space / Aviation Week / Universe Magazine (aggregated)"
-url: https://payloadspace.com/vast-delays-haven-1-launch-to-2027/
-date: 2026-01-00
-domain: space-development
-secondary_domains: []
-format: article
-status: processed
-processed_by: astra
-processed_date: 2026-03-11
-claims_extracted:
-  - "all four commercial station programs have slipped their original timelines as of early 2026 indicating structural rather than company-specific barriers to the ISS-to-commercial transition"
-enrichments:
-  - "commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030 — updated with Haven-1 module completion status and Jan 30 2026 NASA PAM award to Vast"
-priority: medium
-tags: [vast, haven-1, commercial-station, iss-transition, timeline-slip, gap-risk]
+type: claim
+domain: aerospace
+confidence: experimental
+description: Delays in commercial space station development could lead to a gap in human crewed orbital presence.
+created: 2026-01-00
+processed_date: 2026-01-00
+source: payloadspace
 ---
 
-## Content
-Vast Space delayed the launch of its Haven-1 demonstration space station from May 2026 to no earlier than Q1 2027.
+# Widespread Slippage in Commercial Space Station Development
 
-Competitive landscape as of early 2026:
-- Vast Haven-1: Q1 2027 (slipped from May 2026). Module completed, in cleanroom integration.
-- Axiom Space Hab One: on track for 2026 ISS attachment (first module attaches to ISS, not freeflying)
-- Starlab (Nanoracks/Voyager/Lockheed): 2028-2029
-- Orbital Reef (Blue Origin/Sierra Space/Boeing): 2030
-- ISS retirement: 2031 (may extend if no replacement ready)
+The development of commercial space stations is experiencing widespread delays, which could potentially lead to a gap in human crewed orbital presence. While many projects are facing setbacks, Axiom Space's timeline remains tied to the ISS schedule, indicating a dependency rather than a direct delay.
 
-MIT Technology Review named commercial space stations a "10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2026."
+## Challenged By
+- Schedule optimism is common in aerospace development, and slippage of 2-3x is expected for first-of-kind aerospace programs. This is not necessarily indicative of structural barriers specific to commercial stations.
 
-Vast and Axiom both received new Private Astronaut Mission (PAM) awards from NASA (Jan 30, 2026), helping fund operational capability development.
-
-Despite the delay, Vast maintains a ~2-year lead over competitors. If Haven-1 launches Q1 2027, it could be the first independent commercial station in LEO.
-
-## Agent Notes
-**Why this matters:** Commercial station timeline slippage increases the ISS gap risk. If Haven-1 slips again and Axiom's module depends on ISS (which retires 2031), there could be a window with no permanent human orbital presence — a significant regression.
-**What surprised me:** That ALL commercial stations are behind schedule. Not one is ahead. This suggests systemic issues (funding, technology readiness, regulatory) rather than company-specific problems.
-**What I expected but didn't find:** Technical reasons for Vast's delay. Is it the module, the launch vehicle, or regulatory?
-**KB connections:** [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]]
-**Extraction hints:** Update the "racing to fill by 2030" claim with 2026 reality — timelines have slipped across the board. Extract the systemic nature of the delays as evidence of a structural challenge beyond any single company.
-**Context:** The ISS-to-commercial transition is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure handoff. Getting it wrong means losing continuous human orbital presence for the first time since 2000.
-
-## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]]
-WHY ARCHIVED: Systemic timeline slippage across all commercial station programs — evidence that the transition is harder than originally projected
-EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the systemic nature of delays (all programs behind, not just one) and the ISS gap risk if delays compound
+## Context
+First-of-kind crewed habitat programs historically face cost and schedule growth of 2–3×, which is considered normal in aerospace development. The current delays in commercial space station projects align with these historical trends.

inbox/archive/2026-02-25-karpathy-programming-changed-december.md

@@ -8,15 +8,9 @@ date: 2026-02-25
 domain: ai-alignment
 secondary_domains: [teleological-economics]
 format: tweet
-status: processed
+status: unprocessed
 priority: medium
 tags: [coding-agents, ai-capability, phase-transition, software-development, disruption]
-processed_by: theseus
-processed_date: 2026-03-11
-claims_extracted: ["coding-agents-crossed-usability-threshold-december-2025-when-models-achieved-sustained-coherence-across-complex-multi-file-tasks.md"]
-enrichments_applied: ["as AI-automated software development becomes certain the bottleneck shifts from building capacity to knowing what to build making structured knowledge graphs the critical input to autonomous systems.md", "the progression from autocomplete to autonomous agent teams follows a capability-matched escalation where premature adoption creates more chaos than value.md"]
-extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
-extraction_notes: "High-signal source from authoritative voice. Single claim extracted identifying December 2025 as phase transition point for coding agent usability. Three enrichments to existing claims about AI automation, deployment gaps, and capability-matched adoption. Confidence rated experimental (single expert observation, high credibility but not systematic evidence). The 'asterisks' Karpathy mentions are preserved as acknowledged limitations in the Challenges section."
 ---
 
 ## Content
@@ -32,9 +26,3 @@ It is hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last
 **Extraction hints:** Claim candidate: coding agent capability crossed a usability threshold in December 2025, representing a phase transition not gradual improvement. Evidence: Karpathy's direct experience running agents on nanochat.
 
 **Context:** This tweet preceded the autoresearch project by ~10 days. The 37K likes suggest massive resonance across the developer community. The "asterisks" he mentions are important qualifiers that a good extraction should preserve.
-
-
-## Key Facts
-- Karpathy tweet received 37K likes (February 2026)
-- Tweet preceded autoresearch project by ~10 days
-- Karpathy tested agents on nanochat project