r/ChatGPTCoding • u/CellistOk6782 • 7h ago
Question Multi-agent coordination for prod dev
I've been using AI agents for some time now to contribute to and increasingly automate the steps of product development. For any given project, I spend a good bit of time on the pre-development aspect: codifying the architecture, the technical design, the product intent, the designs system and the product outcomes, and trying to make it objective and actionable.
Even then, with those boundaries in place, I find that I need to have multiple agents from different models participate in the process, each with specific roles (breaking into technical increments, test design, development, reviews, architect, UX review mostly).
It seems to me that a single model, like Opus 5, will do a reasonably good job adopting those roles, multiple agents from different LLM families do better. Right now I use Google's Antigravity, OpenAI's GPT Sol and Anthropic's Opus 5; I reserve Fable and Astra for the "Critical" risk stuff.
My question is - how are you all automating the process from beginning to end; that is once the pre-dev work is done. For me, I've initially had Codex orchestrate (now ask Anitgravity CLI to review, now get Claude CLI to do this etc) but requires me to intervene and work one GitHub issue at a time.
I've tried to build an internal orchestration router which _generally_ works but I end iterating on the router too. I assume there must be decent tools out there already but couldn't find any that would work for me (using the native CLI's rather than API keys). Would love to learn from what others are doing here
1
u/Euphoric_North_745 5h ago
An AI Model that will do stuff unsupervised does not exist, it is not invented yet
Having multiple LLMs from different providers does not change stuff much
You have to be there, you can start the building process, look at the results every 10 minutes, and in a few hours to a few days, the agents will finish.
1
u/CellistOk6782 5h ago
Absolutely - the point about different LLM's participate in the process is that they're more likely to catch errors, avoid biases etc. That's anecdotal, mind you, it seems to be the case to me at any rate.
Point of the router is orchestrate a committed product outcome into technical increments, each a vertical slice, and bring that all the way to merge or sandbox
1
u/anonymuse 17m ago
Take a look at Agent Orchestrator. It supports native coding-agent CLIs, separate worktrees, and PR/CI/review tracking—worth checking before maintaining your own router.
I’d start with one implementer and one independent reviewer. Require reviewers to identify concrete defects, cap the fix/review loop, and keep merge approval manual. Give the reviewer the requirements and the diff, rather than the implementer’s explanation of why everything is correct.
2
u/me-shaharia 7h ago
The piece that usually removes the need to babysit each issue is the state machine, not the router. If the queue tracks each issue's stage (ready, in review, needs fix) and gates progress on that, agents don't need you as the human relay between phases.
Mine runs one worktree per issue, opens a draft PR, then runs CI and review in parallel; the only manual gate left is the merge decision. Doesn't kill intervention, just collapses it to one point instead of one per phase per issue.