Cactus Needle 3: 8-29MB automation models can match DeepSeek V4 Flash
Hey HN, Henry from Cactus here.We submitted Needle 2 here a few weeks ago, and the feedback in the discussion thread was incredibly valuable, thanks! Thanks to all that feedback, we’ve been able to move quickly to release Needle 3 and I'd love to hear what you think again.The key features:1) Automation (tool calls & structured JSON output): Needle still doesn't chat by design, its quite challenging to pack general capacity into such small models, so we focus on tool calls and structured JSON. If no tool you declared fits the request, you get an empty list back (note for when playing with the demo).2) Intelligence Laddering: Every layer (2 to 20) is a deployable subnetwork, so one set of weights, 25 to 121 million parameters at 2-bit, shipping as 8-29MB binaries. On a Raspberry Pi 5 it decodes at up to 4k tokens/sec and prefills at up to 10k.3) Monarch Hadamard MLP: replaces the dense FFN with three learnable Walsh-Hadamard-initialized Kronecker (Monarch) factor pairs interleaved with per-channel diagonal scales, fixed permutations, a SiLU nonlinearity, and a rank-8 input-conditioned gate, so each token gets a fully mixed nonlinear transform of its d_model channels at O(d√d) parameters and compute instead of the O(d²) a dense 4x-expansion MLP would cost.4) Performance: On Mobile Actions (phone commands, scored on the exact call) the 20-layer model gets 86.0 through the shipped 2-bit binary; LFM2.5 1.2B is at 82.4, Qwen3.5 0.8B at 76.0, Apple's on-device model at 57.6, all at f16. More results on the link, we do not win everywhere ofc.5) Multilingual: Needle 3 now supports English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch, Italian, Polish, with more languages coming.6) Finetuning: You can achieve DeepSeek v4 Flash grade performance on a narrow task with just 4L, stress on "narrow task", we found that production users often prefer tuning before production.7) Triggers: Grounding is a common challenge for tool call, at least for Needle 2, so we ad
FL score
out of 100
Verdict
high confidence
Competition
No competitor data yet
Trend
No signal yet
Cactus Needle 3 is a 8-29MB automation model that trades general intelligence for tool-calling performance on resource-constrained devices, but lacks a clear path to sustainable revenue.
The pain
The gap
Build angle
Strengths
- Shipping real products with measurable benchmarks on a specific task (Mobile Actions at 86% vs competitors at 57-82%)
- Technical innovation in model compression and efficiency that is not trivial to replicate
- Multi-language support and finetuning capability show product maturity beyond v1
- Raspberry Pi 5 performance (4k tokens/sec decode) proves real-world usability
- Responsive to user feedback and able to ship iterations quickly
Risks
- Narrow use case (tool calling only, no chat) limits total addressable market and makes it hard to justify large customer acquisition spend
- No clear go-to-market strategy. Who buys this and how? B2B SaaS, licensing, open source with services, or something else?
- Larger model providers (DeepSeek, Qwen, Apple) can optimize for on-device performance at scale. Needle's moat is technical depth, not network effects or data.
- Benchmarks are on a single task (Mobile Actions). Real-world performance on diverse automation tasks is unknown.
- Finetuning requires customer effort and data. Adoption friction is higher than a plug-and-play API.
- Revenue model is not stated. Without clarity on pricing and customer willingness to pay, this is a technical demo, not a business.
Fly Labs Method
Is the pain real, is there a gap, is it the right time, can one person build it.
- Problem clarity
- 78
- Solution gap
- 75
- Willingness to pay
- 68
- Buildability
- 68
Real problem exists (on-device automation is constrained), a genuine technical gap is being filled, but willingness to pay and solo buildability are moderate concerns.
Value Equation
Dream outcome and how likely it feels, against the time and effort it costs.
The market for on-device ML is real but fragmented, pricing power is unclear without knowing customer acquisition costs, and the value capture model depends heavily on whether this becomes infrastructure or stays niche.
One-Person Business
Curiosity pull, identity fit, and a path from free value to paid for a solo creator.
The product solves a specific technical problem well (small models that call tools), but the addressable market is narrow (mobile automation, not general chat), limiting total revenue potential.
Viral Frameworks
Hook strength, shareability, and how cheaply it can be tested.
The team has shipped multiple iterations and gathered feedback, showing execution ability, but the business model is still forming and the competitive moat against larger model providers is uncertain.
Builder Lens
Evidence the problem exists, timing, defensibility, and a model that fits on a napkin.
Strong technical execution and a clear problem statement, but the go-to-market strategy is vague, the customer acquisition path is not obvious, and the long-term defensibility against model scaling is questionable.
Five lenses, one composite. How scoring works
The angle
No market research recorded for this idea yet.
Semble – Code search for agents that uses 98% fewer tokens than grep
Hey HN! We (Stephan and Thomas) recently open-sourced Semble. We kept running into the same problem while using Claude Code on large codebases: when the agent can't find something directly, it falls back to grep, reading full files or launching subagents. This uses a lot of tokens, and often still misses the relevant code. There are existing tools for this, but they were either too slow to index on demand, needed API keys, or had poor retrieval quality.Semble is our solution for this. It combines static Model2Vec embeddings (using our latest static model: potion-code-16M) with BM25, fused via RRF and reranked with code-aware signals. Everything runs on CPU since there's no transformers involved. On our benchmark of ~1250 query/document pairs across 63 repos and 19 languages, it uses 98% fewer tokens than grep+read and reaches 99% of the retrieval quality of a 137M-parameter code-trained transformer, while being ~200x faster.Main features:- Token-efficient: 98% fewer tokens than grep+read- Fast: ~250ms to index a typical repo on our benchmark, ~1.5ms per query on CPU (very large repos may take longer)- Accurate: 0.854 NDCG@10, 99% of the best transformer setup we tested- MCP server: drop-in for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, OpenCode- Zero config: no API keys, no GPU, no external servicesInstall in Claude Code with: claude mcp add semble -s user -- uvx --from "semble[mcp]" sembleOr check our README for other installation instructions, benchmarks, and methodology:Semble: https://github.com/MinishLab/sembleBenchmarks: https://github.com/MinishLab/semble/tree/main/benchmarksModel: https://huggingface.co/minishlab/potion-code-16MLet us know if you have any feedback or questions!
AI
Postgres extension for BM25 relevance-ranked full-text search
Last summer we faced a conundrum at my company, Tiger Data, a Postgres cloud vendor whose main business is in timeseries data. We were trying to grow our business towards emerging AI-centric workloads and wanted to provide a state-of-the-art hybrid search stack in Postgres. We'd already built pgvectorscale in house with the goal of scaling semantic search beyond pgvector's main memory limitations. We just needed a scalable ranked keyword search solution too.The problem: core Postgres doesn't provide this; the leading Postgres BM25 extension, ParadeDB, is guarded behind AGPL; developing our own extension appeared daunting. We'd need a small team of sharp engineers and 6-12 months, I figured. And we'd probably still fall short of the performance of a mature system like Parade/Tantivy.Or would we? I'd be experimenting long enough with AI-boosted development at that point to realize that with the latest tools (Claude Code + Opus) and an experienced hand (I've been working in database systems internals for 25 years now), the old time estimates pretty much go out the window.I told our CTO I thought I could solo the project in one quarter. This raised some eyebrows.It did take a little more time than that (two quarters), and we got some real help from the community (amazing!) after open-sourcing the pre-release. But I'm thrilled/exhausted today to share that pg_textsearch v1.0 is freely available via open source (Postgres license), on Tiger Data cloud, and hopefully soon, a hyperscalar near you:https://github.com/timescale/pg_textsearchIn the blog post accompanying the release, I overview the architecture and present benchmark results using MS-MARCO. To my surprise, we were not only able to meet Parade/Tantivy's query performance, but exceed it substantially, measuring a 4.7x advantage on query throughput at scale:https://www.tigerdata.com/blog/pg-textsearch-bm25-fu
AI
GlycemicGPT – Open-source AI-powered diabetes management
I'm a Type 1 diabetic and software engineer. Last year I went months between endocrinologists with no clinician reviewing my data. I'm an engineer, so I built the tool I needed — and now I'm open sourcing it. GlycemicGPT is a self-hosted platform that connects continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and existing Nightscout instances to an AI analysis layer running on your own infrastructure. Data sources:Dexcom G7 (cloud API) Tandem t:slim X2 and Mobi pumps (direct BLE) Nightscout (point it at your existing instance and you're running in minutes)What the AI layer does:Daily briefs summarizing overnight and 24-hour patterns Meal response analysis Conversational chat with RAG-backed clinical knowledge Predictive alerting with configurable thresholds and caregiver escalationImportant: this is monitoring and analysis only. GlycemicGPT does not deliver insulin, does not control your pump, and is not a closed-loop system. It reads your data and gives you insight on top of it. Your clinical decisions stay between you and your care team. Architecture:Self-hosted via Docker or K8S — the GlycemicGPT stack runs entirely on your hardware BYOAI — bring your own AI provider. Use Ollama for fully local operation (no data leaves your hardware), or point it at Claude, OpenAI, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint if you prefer a hosted model. Data flows directly from your instance to the provider you choose; nothing is routed through any centralized service operated by the project. GPL-3.0, no subscriptions, no vendor lock-inStack:Backend API: FastAPI, Python 3.12, PostgreSQL 16, Redis 7 Web Dashboard: Next.js 15, React 19, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui AI Sidecar: TypeScript, Express, multi-provider proxy Android App: Kotlin, Jetpack Compose, BLE Wear OS: Kotlin, Wear Compose, Watch Face Push API Plugin SDK: Kotlin interfaces, capability-based, sandboxedLooking for contributors — especially folks with BLE/Android experience or anyone in the diabetes tech spa
AI
Questions about this idea?
FlyBot reads the scoring and gives you a second opinion on “Cactus Needle 3: 8-29MB automation models can match DeepSeek V4 Flash”.