How to use Unknown to debug tinygrad with Deebo
The author reports that test_failure_53 passed after Deebo investigated GROUPTOP-related failure hypotheses; the fix remained under review.
Prompt to try
Editorial adaptation, not the source author’s exact prompt. Replace bracketed inputs and review tool permissions first.
Investigate [failing test] in [repository]. Parse the relevant code, develop competing root-cause hypotheses, and test each in a separate Git branch. Validate candidate changes against the failure and report evidence, remaining uncertainty, and a proposed fix for review.
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →What happened
The author reports that test_failure_53 passed after Deebo investigated GROUPTOP-related failure hypotheses; the fix remained under review.
Reported by finally4444 on Hacker NewsHow the agent did it
- Parse the failing test and repository structure.
- Investigate GROUPTOP optimization on uchar reductions.
- Explore type promotion, strides and scope conflicts.
Where a person stepped in
The fix was still under review; the post does not describe the reviewers or their review procedure.
A person set the goal and reviewed the result.
The developers stress-tested Deebo against a real tinygrad debugging task, test_failure_53, associated with a $100 bounty. The failure lay inside the Linearizer optimizer, and the post says earlier attempts had not established a clear root cause.
Deebo first parsed the test and repository structure. It hypothesized that GROUPTOP optimization on uchar reductions was involved, then explored type promotion problems, stride edge cases, and scope conflicts. The reported solution path was to disable GROUPTOP in unsafe contexts or introduce explicit type coercion. The test passed, although the fix was still under review when the author posted.
The surrounding architecture explains how Deebo investigates problems. A mother agent starts scenario subprocesses, each testing a different hypothesis in its own Git branch. Those subprocesses use git-mcp and desktopCommander to validate or falsify candidate fixes. Results return asynchronously, and structured reasoning loops guide convergence. The post attributes the investigation to Deebo itself, but does not establish that the proposed fix was accepted upstream or identify which of the two described approaches was ultimately selected.
Who it's for: Developers investigating difficult optimizer failures who can evaluate experimental fixes before accepting them.
Prompt
Suggested prompt (written by Agents In Use, not the author's)
Source: Hacker News · finally4444
Frequently asked questions
Which failure did Deebo investigate?
The team selected tinygrad test_failure_53, a $100 bounty task involving the Linearizer optimizer.
Was the fix accepted upstream?
The post says the test passed and the fix was still under review. It does not report upstream acceptance.
More details
Remaining steps
- Propose a fix and validate it against the test.
About this account
Deebo explored hypotheses through scenario subprocesses in separate branches and converged through structured reasoning loops.
Platform: Hacker News. Attribution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43682870. Prompt: Suggested (written by Agents In Use, not the author's). Sourced by the Agents In Use pipeline.
Credit: finally4444 on Hacker News
Source published 14 Apr 2025
Source checked 14 Oct 2026
Tools and topics
Deebo · git-mcp · desktopCommander · Git
Debugging · MCP
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.