scrcpy mirrors and controls Android devices from your desktop over USB or TCP/IP with low latency, no root required, and no app installation on the device.

- 30–120fps mirroring at up to 1920×1080 or above
- Audio forwarding (Android 11+), recording, and virtual display support
- Physical keyboard and mouse simulation via HID
- Works on Linux, Windows, and macOS

Explore it here:
https://www.opensourceprojects.dev/post/scrcpy

RAG vs. Graph RAG vs. Agentic RAG, clearly explained!

Standard RAG embeds documents into vectors and retrieves the most similar chunks via similarity search. For direct factual lookups, this works well.

But it breaks down when a query needs to connect facts spread across multiple documents. Similarity search retrieves individual chunks, not the relationships between them.

Graph RAG adds a knowledge graph layer on top.

→ During indexing, an LLM extracts entities and relationships from the documents.

→ During retrieval, the system traverses these connections instead of relying on embedding similarity alone.

This is what enables multi-hop queries.

Say a vector DB stores three facts about internal services:

↳ "The checkout service uses payments API."
↳ "The payments API runs on cluster-3."
↳ "Cluster-3 is scheduled for maintenance on Friday."

Someone asks: "Will the checkout service be affected by Friday's maintenance?"

Vector search can likely retrieve facts 1 and 3 because the query mentions "checkout service" and "Friday maintenance."

But it will miss fact 2, which connects the payments API to cluster-3.

That middle fact sits too far from the query in embedding space. It mentions neither "checkout" nor "maintenance," so it never makes it into the retrieved context.

A knowledge graph connects these as linked entities, and graph traversal finds the full path in one query.

Agentic RAG takes a different approach entirely.

Instead of a fixed retrieval pipeline, an LLM agent decides at query time which tools to invoke, which sources to query, and in what order.

Check the visual below to understand the three architectures thoroughly.

One thing to note here is that these three aren't levels of sophistication that you need to graduate through.

Instead, they solve different query types.

↳ Single-hop factual lookups → standard RAG
↳ Multi-hop relationship queries → Graph RAG
↳ Dynamic multi-source tasks with tool use → Agentic RAG

----

Each of these architectures gets better when the underlying retrieval layer is efficient.

I recently wrote about a new RAG approach that cuts corpus size by 40x, reduces tokens per query by 3x, and improves vector search relevance by 2.3x.

The article is quoted below.

Don't train the model, evolve the harness.

I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it.

That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends.

By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed.

The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all.

So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness.

Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound.

What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail.

→ The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens.

→ Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish.

→ The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%.

The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work.

But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed.

I highly recommend reading this: https://huggingface.co/spaces/joelniklaus/harness-optimization

I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent.

The article is quoted below.