Hi winner bro! We are win on a same challenge: copilot cli.
Enjoy the rest of the year and relax, power up is mission critical!
My result a bit worst: 1/9 or 1/7/(2x?) I don't know Hacktoberfest week 3 and 4 result, so maybe I am in the race with hexaw and Singularity Game also.
But right now I found a hidden gem of hackhaton which is seems nice to me: Meta VR competition So I try to make something with my 3D engine.
I'm not surprised at all! That's exactly why I don't participate in these challenges. I have the same all-or-nothing mentality, and they're so time-consuming!
But I have a very similar problem with conferences. One day I wake up and realize I've somehow ended up speaking at a conference every two weeks, all across Europe, of course, with absolutely no time left for anything else! 😂
So I totally get it. Sometimes you just have to let go a little. And that doesn't necessarily mean doing less, just choosing to focus your time and energy on different things.
Actually, one of the reasons why I decided this way is to focus on doing other stuff as well, including conferences. I gotta start somewhere, but if I'm not able to say no each time they announce a new challenge. I ain't gonna have any time for it.
The NoteRunway part caught my attention, especially the decision to keep destructive operations behind user approval.
One thing I'd be curious about is how you handle the gap between approval and execution. For example, if an agent proposes deleting a set of duplicate pages, gets approval, but the underlying workspace changes before the operation runs, the original approval might no longer represent the action being executed.
I'd bind the approval to the exact operation, including the target resource IDs and parameters, then validate that scope again at execution time. Adding idempotency keys would also help prevent duplicate operations if an MCP call times out and gets retried.
It's a small architectural detail, but it makes a big difference once an agent moves beyond suggesting changes and starts modifying real user data.
Also, two wins out of five is a solid run. Knowing when to stop building for a scoreboard and put that energy into projects you actually want to ship is an interesting decision in itself.
It definitely was an interesting project. As for your question, by design, if the state changes (for example the page gets deleted by another process), it'll simply not do any further action. But I need to think about if it's necessary to warn the author if something changes in that page before deletion. Good point.
That makes sense. I was thinking about a slightly different edge case: what if the page still exists, but its content or relationships have changed since approval?
For example, a page gets flagged as a duplicate, but while the approval is pending, someone edits it or adds new backlinks pointing to it. The existence check would still pass, even though deleting that page might no longer be the right action.
I'd probably handle that with version-based validation. Capture the page's revision or ETag when the approval is requested, then execute the deletion only if that version still matches. It's similar to how HTTP If-Match works with conditional requests. If the version has changed, abort the operation and ask for approval again, ideally showing what changed.
I'm not sure whether Notion's API exposes a revision token that can be used for an atomic conditional delete, but I think that's an important distinction between checking whether a resource still exists and checking whether it's still the resource the user actually approved.
I relate so hard with this and honestly I guess its good to take a break I have been thinking the same after a couple of more hackthons I plan to take a break and work on my personal Projects and Open source btw cool setup :)
Two wins out of five is a strong year by any measure, and the part that stuck with me was your rule for stopping: not building something just because a challenge is there. That takes more discipline than entering, especially after a win. Resting the engine now so the next idea is one you actually care about sounds like the right call — looking forward to what you build on your own terms next.
"Effort doesn't guarantee a win" hit close to home. I put weeks into a buildathon entry recently and didn't even get shortlisted. The part I agree with most is not building something just for the challenge. The project I lost with is the one I'm still working on, and that has mattered more than the result. 2 out of 5 is a great year, enjoy the quiet.
That's the harsh reality that's sometimes hard to accept, but once you understand the mechanics of how competitions work, then you appreciate the fact that your work doesn't go to waste, it stays with you, along with the experience and knowledge you get in the process.
Stopping mid-task is hard because work in progress has no natural receipt. A lightweight shutdown note—current state, next smallest action, and an explicit not-doing list—can preserve continuity without making rest conditional on closing every open loop.
Hi winner bro! We are win on a same challenge: copilot cli.
Enjoy the rest of the year and relax, power up is mission critical!
My result a bit worst: 1/9 or 1/7/(2x?) I don't know Hacktoberfest week 3 and 4 result, so maybe I am in the race with hexaw and Singularity Game also.
But right now I found a hidden gem of hackhaton which is seems nice to me:
Meta VR competition So I try to make something with my 3D engine.
Winning that challenge was incredibly challenging, over 400 people signed up, so well done! I remember your project, it was awesome!
You applied for 9 challenges? That's a lot!
2 wins out of 5 is honestly an amazing run! 😸🎉
But I also really like the decision to stop when you no longer have an idea you genuinely care about.
Sometimes knowing when to turn the engine off is a win too. 🏁
I’m looking forward to seeing what you build next when there’s no challenge telling you what to make! 🙌
When there's no challenge telling me the rules, I get 10x more creative. So expect some good stuff.😊
I'm not surprised at all! That's exactly why I don't participate in these challenges. I have the same all-or-nothing mentality, and they're so time-consuming!
But I have a very similar problem with conferences. One day I wake up and realize I've somehow ended up speaking at a conference every two weeks, all across Europe, of course, with absolutely no time left for anything else! 😂
So I totally get it. Sometimes you just have to let go a little. And that doesn't necessarily mean doing less, just choosing to focus your time and energy on different things.
Actually, one of the reasons why I decided this way is to focus on doing other stuff as well, including conferences. I gotta start somewhere, but if I'm not able to say no each time they announce a new challenge. I ain't gonna have any time for it.
The NoteRunway part caught my attention, especially the decision to keep destructive operations behind user approval.
One thing I'd be curious about is how you handle the gap between approval and execution. For example, if an agent proposes deleting a set of duplicate pages, gets approval, but the underlying workspace changes before the operation runs, the original approval might no longer represent the action being executed.
I'd bind the approval to the exact operation, including the target resource IDs and parameters, then validate that scope again at execution time. Adding idempotency keys would also help prevent duplicate operations if an MCP call times out and gets retried.
It's a small architectural detail, but it makes a big difference once an agent moves beyond suggesting changes and starts modifying real user data.
Also, two wins out of five is a solid run. Knowing when to stop building for a scoreboard and put that energy into projects you actually want to ship is an interesting decision in itself.
It definitely was an interesting project. As for your question, by design, if the state changes (for example the page gets deleted by another process), it'll simply not do any further action. But I need to think about if it's necessary to warn the author if something changes in that page before deletion. Good point.
That makes sense. I was thinking about a slightly different edge case: what if the page still exists, but its content or relationships have changed since approval?
For example, a page gets flagged as a duplicate, but while the approval is pending, someone edits it or adds new backlinks pointing to it. The existence check would still pass, even though deleting that page might no longer be the right action.
I'd probably handle that with version-based validation. Capture the page's revision or ETag when the approval is requested, then execute the deletion only if that version still matches. It's similar to how HTTP
If-Matchworks with conditional requests. If the version has changed, abort the operation and ask for approval again, ideally showing what changed.I'm not sure whether Notion's API exposes a revision token that can be used for an atomic conditional delete, but I think that's an important distinction between checking whether a resource still exists and checking whether it's still the resource the user actually approved.
Interesting angle. Will absolutely take this into consideration when publishing the next version of the app.
I relate so hard with this and honestly I guess its good to take a break I have been thinking the same after a couple of more hackthons I plan to take a break and work on my personal Projects and Open source btw cool setup :)
Thanks!
Taking a break is a good idea. You need to set aside some time for your own projects.
Two wins out of five is a strong year by any measure, and the part that stuck with me was your rule for stopping: not building something just because a challenge is there. That takes more discipline than entering, especially after a win. Resting the engine now so the next idea is one you actually care about sounds like the right call — looking forward to what you build on your own terms next.
Thank you!
"Effort doesn't guarantee a win" hit close to home. I put weeks into a buildathon entry recently and didn't even get shortlisted. The part I agree with most is not building something just for the challenge. The project I lost with is the one I'm still working on, and that has mattered more than the result. 2 out of 5 is a great year, enjoy the quiet.
That's the harsh reality that's sometimes hard to accept, but once you understand the mechanics of how competitions work, then you appreciate the fact that your work doesn't go to waste, it stays with you, along with the experience and knowledge you get in the process.
Stopping mid-task is hard because work in progress has no natural receipt. A lightweight shutdown note—current state, next smallest action, and an explicit not-doing list—can preserve continuity without making rest conditional on closing every open loop.
Totally agreed!