Looks like all bullshit to me. When you try to make up complex terms to pretend that you are doing engineering but it is baseless.

Something like if I do a list of dev pattern and I say:

- caffeinated break for algorithmic thinking improvement

When I'm thinking about an algorithmic logic, go to have a coffee break, and then go back to my work desk to work on it again.

Here is one of the first "pattern" of the project I opened for example:

   Dogfooding with rapid iteration for agent improvement.

   Developing effective AI agents requires understanding real-world usage and quickly identifying areas for improvement. External feedback loops can be slow, and simulated environments may not capture all nuances.

   Solution:

The development team extensively uses their own AI agent product ("dogfooding") for their daily software development tasks.

Or

"Extended coherence work sessions"

   Early AI agents and models often suffered from a short "coherence window," meaning they could only maintain focus and context for a few minutes before their performance degraded significantly (e.g., losing track of instructions, generating irrelevant output). This limited their utility for complex, multi-stage tasks that require sustained effort over hours.

   Solution
   Utilize AI models and agent architectures that are specifically designed or have demonstrably improved capabilities to maintain coherence over extended periods (e.g., several hours)

Don't tell me that it is not all bullshit...

I don't say that what is said is not true.

Just imagine you took a 2 pages pamphlet about how to use an LLM and you splitted every sentence into a wannabee "pattern".