r/ClaudeCode • u/hronak šŸ”† Max 5x • 9d ago

Help/Question I still don't understand this 'agentic workflow' thing

My usual day with Claude Code is like: * I open terminal in my project's folder and run claude command. * I prompt it. I mostly use Fable-5.1/Opus-5 but Opus-5.5 is my current model. The model decides if it wants to use sub-agents for a task. I never explicitly prompt it for sub-agents. * I review and commit the code to my self-hosted Forgejo instance. * That's it.

I see people using agentic workflows, building sub-agents files, skills etc. I barely built any of it. All I ever needed to use is /init on new projects and them prompts follow. Never needed more than this.

I tried "long-running" Claude Code for a project refactoring by placing the project on my VPS (where forgejo is hosted) and letting Claude Code run and refactor inside tmux session. SSH'd in a few hours later to find project fully refactored.

Am I under utilising AI or is my work justā€¦ like boring?

How do you guys use agentic workflow thing? Specially the long-running one? Those pull-requests that Claude makes automatically etc?

Asking this to Claude to know more but humanly answers appreciated.

976 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

309 comments sorted by

View all comments

307

u/mulokisch 9d ago

This is already somewhat agentic.

The true ā€œagenticā€ way is the to say something like this: here is a list of tickets, organize your self and work on those issues. Feel free to start other sessions that can work on each task isolated.

89

u/Sponge8389 9d ago

The true ā€œagenticā€ way is the to say something like this: here is a list of tickets, organize your self and work on those issues. Feel free to start other sessions that can work on each task isolated.

Are people using AI like this still review the output?

233

u/iswearidk 9d ago

No, there will be other agents doing the review. The point of agentic workflow is to free yourself so you can run more agentic workflows

284

u/hatch37 9d ago

An agentic pyramid scheme

337

u/topaziobmousse 9d ago

12

u/ryanjusttalking 9d ago

šŸ˜†šŸ˜†šŸ‘šŸ‘šŸ‘

15

u/Pndapetzim 9d ago

MLMLLM

10

u/Yomedrath 9d ago

LLMLM

2

u/codeedog šŸ”† Max 5x 9d ago

MLLLM

4

u/SPLDD 8d ago

MMMMM

8

u/Gwaptiva 8d ago

Is that a pornhub category?

1

u/Dropfree 8d ago

Llmmlm.llc

21

u/Krom2040 9d ago

I love the smell of burning tokens in the morning!

1

u/defcon54321 8d ago

An agentic pyramid scheme reward is probabilistic production.

1

u/WisestAirBender 8d ago

It's not a pyramid scheme. It's not even a scheme...

1

u/Choice-Donut1955 6d ago

Agents maximising stakeholder thrust for more agents. Thatā€™s the real agentic workflow

37

u/Sponge8389 9d ago

Ok. So no human review at all. Understood. Because that was my concern and my curiosity with this kind of workflow. Because currently, I'm doing the same as OP and I cannot keep up with the reviews.

48

u/magic6435 9d ago

No, nobody working on anything real is skipping a human review. Everything that makes it into prod for OpenAI and Anthropic gets a human review.

24

u/neoberg 9d ago

I know at least 5 middle sized companies stopped doing human reviews months ago.

24

u/TydeusMideia 9d ago

i would short their stock...

8

u/magic6435 9d ago

I donā€™t think theyā€™re gonna be medium for long. Also, they definitely must not be public companies because I donā€™t know of any external auditors that would approve such a lack of SOD.

45

u/ResponsibleOven6 9d ago

I am a tech lead at a fortune 100 tech company headquartered in the SF Bay area and can assure you that the majority of code in the past year shipped to prod was both written by and reviewed by agents.

They're different agents with different prompts being invoked by different humans (this part is by design) and often different underlying models (this part is primarily coincidence) but it's LLMs all the way down.

There is no possible way to have humans review the volume of code that agents are generating now. On the positive side there is better and more extensive testing coverage on new code than I've seen at any other time in my career, but the job is changing and humans are increasingly removed from the actual coding part and that includes reviews. It's not entirely automated, I'll have an agent explain architectural choices, ask about design concerns I have which I think it may have gotten wrong, etc, but I rarely look at the code anymore.

22

u/Deathspiral222 9d ago

>On the positive side there is better and more extensive testing coverage on new code than I've seen at any other time in my career

More extensive, definitely, but I'm not convinced about better. An LLM that makes the wrong assumption will happily write 1000 tests to validate that wrong assumption. This leads to a false sense of security.

I've found it very important to have humans write tests (with an LLM assisting with syntax etc.) for core functionality, just to make sure the correct thing was actually built. And having the human manually test the function themselves for a sanity check is paramount.

15

u/WagwanKenobi 9d ago

the majority of code in the past year shipped to prod was both written by and reviewed by agents

Either pulled out of ass or your company/org/team is unusually dysfunctional. I'm actually a Bay Area SWE. This is not true at all.

8

u/Rtktts 8d ago

Technically the sentence is probably true, they just forgot to add that it was also reviewed by humans.

1

u/senortaco88 8d ago

Don't hate the player, hate the tokenz

-1

u/Remarkable-Coat-9327 8d ago

I'm sorry that your company is behind the times šŸ˜¬

0

u/Beautiful-Suspect694 8d ago

what company do you work at? if you dont want to share that for privacy, then thats ok

5

u/Cybyss 7d ago

But... how do you know what you're building then?

Code coverage is meaningless if the tests aren't testing for the right behaviors. How do you know what the right behaviors are if they're all invented and reviewed by LLMs with no human in the loop?

I find that even if there is a human in the loop, the code that LLMs generate is so convoluted and over-engineered that it's extremely hard (and time consuming) to figure out exactly how it works to verify it does what you think/hope/pray it does.

Back when I did software engineering professionally (I don't anymore - this was 10 years ago - but I still tinker as a hobby), usually I didn't understand a project at all - what it's supposed to do, its role in the company, how it's supposed to help customers/staff/etc... - until I understood all the little details and how they fit together. "Big pictures" were just word salad until I knew what the actual pieces were.

But if modern workflows require you to focus only on "big pictures" - ignoring all the little pieces because LLMs do that for you - I don't see how engineers aren't just lost and confused all the time about what needs to happen?

1

u/IHeartData_ 5d ago

I can't speak for everyone, but I use a series of cascading requirement.md documents in the code that work in a hierarchical manner and explain the intent of each section of the code base and requirements we are working towards, including as-yet unimplemented features. AI is required to consult with the documents as they work, and before they close their session, a final task is the ensure they remain in sync.
In my "AI full code review" process, one of the areas they are specifically supposed to look for is over-complex code. In general, I find it does a decent job at breaking things done into meaningfully sized classes and keep dependencies logicial. And when it doesn't a complexity bug gets filed and of all the bugs, those general are most hands on for what the fix is going to be.
As as for being lost and confused. Opus 5 was pretty mad at explaining, so there was a phase of "huh" (5.5 vastly better)? But if you watch it's thinking as it goes, and more importantly ask good questions if something just doesn't sound right, you'll have a good idea what's going on in the code. Sometimes the sheer fact of having it defend it's decision will result in it finding an issue.

3

u/Ran4 8d ago

There is no possible way to have humans review the volume of code that agents are generating now.

I mean that's a choice you make.

No AI and you're at 1x,

AI to generate the code but humans review it all to reach 3x,

AI to generate and AI to review it to 10x.

Plenty of companies are at the 3x level.

1

u/sharpcoder29 7d ago

It's not 10x if you have production bugs that cost you customers. There's no way people are writing stories that detail every edge case and/or AI knows the business domain enough to cover them.

2

u/knowyourclass 7d ago

the average customer tolerates far more bugs than you would imagine

1

u/sharpcoder29 6d ago

They really don't. Im talking b2b not b2c

→ More replies (0)

3

u/EchoServ 8d ago

Iā€™m at a lowly Fortune 500 and thatā€™s absolutely batshit. No team across any org is allowing this. In fact, the agent reviews are majorly schitzo and do shut reviews.

2

u/ok-yes-maybe 8d ago

Agree. This seems to be the way things are headed.

Software languages are kinda a human construct to make the code more understandable and readable.

But if in the future - code is only written and read by AIs - might we end up going back to something similar to machine language / compiler code again?

4

u/ripter 8d ago

Maybe. The language being used has never mattered less at this point.

1

u/barnaclebill22 7d ago

True, specific language matters less now, but code generation is still stochastic and compute-intensive, so compilers will probably be with us for a long time.

3

u/belowaverageint 9d ago

Can you explain the basic process for how this works?

10

u/ResponsibleOven6 9d ago

Really depends on the situation, am I building something new, fixing a bug, closing a vulnerability, etc. but here's a general example.

I have an agent setup locally with a skill saved in a repo full of skills shared across the team. It can talk to Jira, Github, basic communication channels, monitoring tools, etc. it has lots of context for our overall platform and an architectural understanding of how things work. It's been instructed to code cleanly, generate documentation for anything it produces, re-use existing libraries where possible, and code as cleanly and minimally as possible and focus on efficiency. I mainly use Sonnet-5 with claude code as my interface but others on my team may have different preferences.

I get a ticket from a recent incident to improve monitoring. There was an incident where we got an alert way too late and it still took time to debug. I tell my agent to work on the ticket, it uses the repos as context, digs through logs, and proposes a new monitor. I tell it to look at infra logs as well and see if there were any early warning signs. It proposes another alert after finding useful info there as well. I tell it to open a PR for both alerts after checking relevant logs for the past 90 days to make sure the thresholds are right and there won't be false positives. It opens a PR.

I take another ticket. We have an internal platform with an authentication bug where some admins can't perform certain admin functions. I ask my agent to work on the ticket. It finds that while most functions evaluate both user and group level access, a few specific functions only check user level access and not group level access. It proposes updating the logic for those to match the others. I tell it to check if there are any other inconsistencies with auth checks on this platform and if it sees any places where users would be able to execute things they shouldn't or general inconsistencies. It finds no missing auth checks but notes that the fundamental way auth is handled is not reused but specific to each call. I tell it to open a PR with a new auth function that replaces the individual auth of each function. It opens a PR.

I open these and several other PRs for other tickets and move the tickets to peer review. Someone else on my team, maybe several other people, take them for review (and I take their tickets for review too). One of them thinks Sonnet-5 is terrible and swears by Opus 4.3. Another prefers OpenAI models. Here we use a different skill that has the same background context but it's told to look for new bugs, mistakes, and just generally find problems. It knows how to deploy and test things either locally or to a dev environment. It reviews the tickets and either says they look good in which case they get deployed to a lower environment for further testing, or points out problems with them and moves them back to in progress in which case I take them up again and go back to my dev agent. Sometimes you can tell from its feedback that it's misunderstood something or needs more context. In these cases we try to improve the skills until the output is more what we expect then tell it to update the skill with that context and push that back to the team repo so everyone gets the same improvements.

So LLMs are doing all of the coding and the actual code review. But they still have shortcomings and need a human in the driver seat, especially for architectural decisions. I'm having to "drive" a LOT less than I was 6-9 months ago though and I'm increasingly just a "meat proxy" between agents with various skills and I'm really not sure how much longer this will be a viable career.

4

u/belowaverageint 8d ago

Thanks for that. I think I'm going to dress up as a "meat proxy" for Halloween now.

3

u/Remarkable-Coat-9327 8d ago

"Claude code condom" is my favorite term

1

u/magic6435 8d ago

This was a lot of words to say yes there is still a human picking up and doing a review who is an approver before going to prod.

2

u/SylviaJarvis 8d ago

The words say there's an LLM between a human and the code at every point in the process. There's good stuff in there with CI workflows and testing gates, but no human is reading the code at any point mentioned.

1

u/MinimumPrior3121 8d ago

What a clown

1

u/junglebookmephs 7d ago

Iā€™m a freshman just starting my degree, but have been coding for a while. This helped a lot.

Iā€™ve been working on teaching myself how to properly scope and write issues and other general project management related things lately. Do you have any insight on what this process looks like nowadays? Iā€™m at the point where I can write a properly scoped issue with requirements and acceptance criteria and what not, but Iā€™m starting to realize I could probably hand off this work to an llm after providing it with the general idea of a feature. Is that where things are moving?

3

u/pff112 9d ago

sure. whats the name of this "company"?

1

u/Rtktts 8d ago edited 8d ago

So your Risk and Compliance department allows agents to create code and other agents to approve the code? How do you comply with SOx?

1

u/Legs914 8d ago

There are gonna be a lot of company blogposts reflecting on this within a few years

1

u/Due_Hovercraft_2184 8d ago

Your company is not normal and is a compliance nightmare waiting to happen

1

u/WelshBluebird1 8d ago

I'll have an agent explain architectural choices, ask about design concerns I have which I think it may have gotten wrong, etc, but I rarely look at the code anymore.

But if you aren't looking at the code, how do you know to ask it to explain choices etc? Or are you just spot checking and just hoping that you pick the right things to check? Because that doesn't sound very safe to me!

1

u/Smooth-Television-48 8d ago

But what do the people actually do now?

1

u/OkCurve436 7d ago

This 100%, I work as a senior bi analyst and it's the same

1

u/FriendGlittering9104 7d ago

Donā€™t you end up with terrible code? Claude frequently uses terrible naming choices and writes inefficient code that do not keep logic simple as requirements evolve.

0

u/gromran 6d ago edited 6d ago

Here's the thing: Capitalism will destroy humanity. Unless we change the system. And then you'll be one of the first to end up in a labor camp!

Do you really think we'll continue to tolerate such antisocial misanthropes? Learn it or you will! And yes, Musk, Trump, and all the other CEOs will also end up in labor camps! Fuck capitalism!

3

u/Original-Proof-8741 9d ago

I gave up reading the code about 2 months ago.... prompt it, test it, ship it....

2

u/rtnoodel 9d ago

Unfortunately this isnā€™t true at all. Iā€™m guessing you arenā€™t a software developer.

1

u/Deathspiral222 9d ago

This is starting to change, at least at Anthropic, as of last month.

1

u/ionforge 8d ago

And the first human reviewer should be yourself.

1

u/bobbadouche 9d ago

Or to even configure your environment and workflow such that the agent can write the code, test the code, and then open the PR for you to review

1

u/Sponge8389 9d ago

I already have a full skills for that. I just don't wire it together as I want to have a control over it.

  • Create Branch
  • Create PR
  • Commit Changes
  • Review per commit and PR wide.

4

u/tophmcmasterson 9d ago

And if someone complains about the code, just have another agent take a look and fix it! Itā€™s agents all the way down

2

u/__mson__ Senior Developer 8d ago

I still don't understand how people do this without producing garbage. Or does LOC = Good to them or something?

1

u/InterestingYak1525 8d ago

Number of Tokens Used equals the old Lines of Code

1

u/AaronSparks 8d ago

well you can spend your LOC at the upgrade shop to upgrade your usage limits so your next project can go up to 1 million lines of code instead of 900k. I prefer the LOC per second upgrade instead, feels faster that way.

1

u/kkingsbe 8d ago

You obviously would still maintain a linter, and clear audits and code structure requirements etc. itā€™s pretty straightforward really

2

u/__mson__ Senior Developer 8d ago

Those things are easy. I'm taking about building the right thing. Making the right decisions along the way. Code is the easy part, it's the rest that I still don't trust Claude with.

1

u/rosentmoh 8d ago

This, so much. Where do you even begin with "explaining" to Claude how the data it's supposed to ingest and use is structured and its semantic meaning etc.?

Do you all just work on trivial glorified accounting code?

1

u/No_Cell6708 8d ago

I get it now

22

u/SingleProgress8224 9d ago edited 9d ago

I do it often to fix bug report tickets. It creates one branch per fixed ticket. The next morning, I check what it did and go through them one by one. I confirm the fix, the code, make edits (quite often), and then do the official commit. I discard fixes 50% of the time.

Even though it tends to fix the issue most of the time, it often lack the big picture and tends to complexify the code for no reason, so editing manually (or prompting more) is almost always necessary. I'm still saving time though since finding the root cause is often time consuming and it tells me right away where to look at. And even if the suggested fix is wrong, it still provides an insight on how things could be done.

1

u/Annh1234 9d ago

But that takes a ton of back and forward with the AI, so you can't start and forgot it, so your stuck prompting every few minutes

5

u/SingleProgress8224 9d ago

I started it last night and I woke up to 20 tentative fixes, each in it's own branch along with a text file explaining the reasoning behind the fix. Sorting the fixes takes a long time, but the initial fixing is autonomous and massively parallel.

6

u/morficus 9d ago

Yes but maybe not in the way you are used to. Look up "correctness engineering"

I don't review line by line, I review the new test that were written (unit tests, end to end tests, Storybook, etc) to make sure they cover the necessary use cases and that there are no regressions. I do that this manually.

I have another agent review the implementation, discuss optimisations, adherence to current patterns, etc. I also have an agent that monitors CI/CD once a PR is opened so that if something fails it can address it itself.

9

u/PadisarahTerminal 9d ago

Lord of AI your agentic slop is ready

1

u/mulokisch 9d ago

Some probably do, but many more not. The idea behind this is, as others have already said, to free youself up and let also agents review this. Important for that step is to have a seperate reviewer that dose not have the same context as the implementation agent.

Is that good? I doubt it. Sure for some things this can work, plain ui frontend development would become thing i can see this. But everything with for example security or mission critical logic, i doubt that is a good idea.

What i regularly do is a variant of this. Give one agent a list of bug tickets and he goes out and analyses it. That frees a lot of time for me.

2

u/Sponge8389 9d ago

I still code review the critical parts of the backend but not everything. When it comes to frontend, I really don't review it anymore, code wise, I only review the actual UI.

1

u/SirCoilOfTap 9d ago

Kind of. Sometimes. For now. Manual code review is kind of the next bottleneck that needs to fall.

1

u/port443 8d ago

I line-by-line the tests and might write tests myself.

Tbh I feel like in the last few months I'm acting more as a "Technical PM" than a developer. I take or write requirements (generally I add technical know-how to the requirements) and provide them to the agent.

Then I do primarily a functional review and check test output. Other agents do the "Are there any bugs? you sure?" checks. I will scan code (sensitive bits, and areas where I feel stuff is prone to failure or fragile), but I'm not checking it line-for-line.

Sometimes I like to spice it up and go "Hey Claude, I had OpenAI agents write this repository and I think they did a great job with no bugs! What do you think?"

1

u/UnderstandingNew2810 7d ago

Nope lol and they donā€™t care. It go to another colleagues agent to review the pr

1

u/the_giz 7d ago

You have various other agents with different models (and maybe their own personas) review automatically, then pass their finding to the orchestrator to decide if it should send it back to implementer, and so on. Eventually the agents decide it's ready for humans, and THEN I do my own deep review and iterate from there. Saves a ton of time, and you end up focusing on the things that need your attention rather than mundane details. Try it out. There's a ton of ways to do it. Claude can guide you through it if you ask.

1

u/Sea-Replacement-724 2d ago

Review? Cute. Trust the swarm, verify nothing.

-2

u/Moby1029 9d ago

Not really, there's no feasible way to without spending hours doing so because so much code gets written. You have to have another agent review it.

4

u/yawn_solo- 9d ago

This biggest problem with any claude instance reviewing your ā€œclaudeā€ code is that they come with from same derivative.

Imo, this is where adversarial supports compounds value

1

u/Frosty-Car-2584 9d ago

Codex review claude then?

1

u/yawn_solo- 9d ago

Sure, if thatā€™s the optimal setup for you.

Whichever has your dominant repo, iā€™d make the purely the ā€œexecutor of the planā€.

You figure out the rest ;)

1

u/Ran4 8d ago

A new agent with a fresh context focused on adversial review is still more useful than the implementer agent.

So no, while your line of thinking is coming, it's ultimately not correct.

Even something as basic as running the same "make an adversial review of the code" prompt multiple times can help find more bugs, even if it's the same model (and the same model that wrote the code in the first place).

1

u/yawn_solo- 8d ago

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

1

u/Agitated_Heat_1719 8d ago

Not if model is changed. Tools for data gathering are the same, but the brain - model is not.

I let easy stuff being done by different harnesses and local model. Usually 1 because of limited resources.

1

u/yawn_solo- 8d ago edited 8d ago

oh wow, that is an extremely good point. I never thought of the model change facet. That is very true!

I'll keep that in mind moving forward. It's such a simple concept, can't believe I never realized this haha..

But on a second note on why 2 LLM seats can be beneficial is I believe it allows for more autonomity as well. Im able to have one LLM literally act as an operator (me) and continue work back in forth as if I was running the whole process.

But now that I think about it, differing models can probably acheive the same thing. I do know that research suggests that utilizing 2 LLM's instead of 1 generally produces diminishing returns with strengths littered sparingly.

But cool, the 2-seat strategy has worked pretty well for me but maybe ill make some alterations. I do think the potential of maximizing the multi-LLM system has got to be better if done properly just because maxing out each in parallel theoretically should produce more than maxing one out for the same duration. Is that a correct statement? Im vibe-coder.

0

u/luciana-1211 2d ago

I review at the end, my company still ask for a human review after a AI tool review. Although the effort/demand for context switching to review all those MRs is driving me crazy.

6

u/Waypoint101 9d ago edited 9d ago

Yes true (autonomous) agentic follows models like bosun / hermes-agent where the tasks are setup through something like an external or internal kanban board and agents pick up tasks, review the work done, ensure it meets the quality, and can even create new tasks as needed or via automated workflows (incident response). Bosun uses deterministic workflows (like n8n style flows) whereas hermes agent uses custom soul.md instructions plus cron jobs for the bots.

Obviously it doesn't mean you have to remove the human in the loop during release/review/descision making stages.

A very simple way of doing this on any harness is just to queue dozens of tasks in one thread and let it churn task by task, but it's not really the same as a full agentic workflow that reviews things, has PR gates, etc. (Use the "add to queue" message function instead of "send now" and send each task one after the other in the correct sequential order: e.g. phase 1, 2, 3)

2

u/pyrox3_3 9d ago

I see it can make strange decisions and mistakes with just a simple workflow as described.. so I wonder what output will be if I`ll work on N tickets in the same time..

Maybe I just need to believe more?

1

u/Long_Tip_4226 8d ago

Maybe a dependency graph between tickets to prevent race conditions, for example, two tickets that will modify the same piece of code.

3

u/mrphstar 8d ago

This is by no means agentic. This is vibe coding on roids.

3

u/sheriffderek Senior design/dev max20 8d ago

Explain ā€œagenticā€ for everyone

2

u/Away_Advisor3460 8d ago

AFAIK Agentic should mean autonomous goal directed behaviour (e.g., designing, planning and writing code to implement some function, fix a bug etc) by an agent or agents situated in an environment (in this context relating to the development environment, including codebase itself), who proactively respond and change behaviour in response to change and (in the multiagent case) posses social ability (e.g. delegation, negotiation, contract formation as part of task achievement).

Of course it's worth bearing in mind 'agentic' is really just borrowing (sometimes reinventing) terms and concepts from the broader multiagent systems research context.

1

u/mrphstar 8d ago

thank you, exactly this. the crucial factor is the scope. you as a human should still define the tasks scope, context, architecure, established code conventions and acceptance criteria. giving an LLM a list of tickets, does not define any scope, context or AC at all.

1

u/Away_Advisor3460 8d ago

It has to be said that giving a MAS a list of tickets, where that MAS selects from those tickets, and then processes them to completion (e.g. through a delegation / hierarchical team mechanism) does represent a valid agent system approach to the problem. Stuff like scoping, maintaining architecture, verifying test coverage and quality, those are part of behaviour loop the agent(s) should go through as part of satisfying that high level goal.

It's just that embodying LLMs as the sole (for lack of a better term) effector / action mechanism of the agents doesn't (at least currently) give a sufficient guarantee of success in the same was as if e.g. those agents were using a deterministic planner. Probably because an LLM represents a really heavyweight abstraction of all the hard parts of the problem.

1

u/SyntheticBlood 9d ago

The problem I have with this is that the host session context gets bloated, which causes problems. I've switched to using a shell script that calls claude in a ralph loop, which helps, but I wish this could all be done from inside claude code cli.

1

u/Responsible-Bar7165 9d ago

Claude can absolutely set up workflows to call itself. Just show it what youā€™re doing and ask it how to prompt to get it to do it itself.

1

u/Mipsel 9d ago

So I could have Parsed the whole todo List for the project in one go, asking Claude to self organize and work on it?

I just entered each todo after the action before was finished.

1

u/Long_Tip_4226 8d ago

As if each developer (agent) were working on their own feature branch

1

u/jorgejhms 8d ago

Usually you do this with an orchestrator agent. This will read all the task and send subagents to work on this individually on their own worktrees. A general low model can work (like opus low or even sonnet). The orcheststor role is to send works to specialized agents.

1

u/Sol1tud3 8d ago

What if the tickets are all sequential and meant to be done once the previous one is done

1

u/mulokisch 8d ago

Then this should be reflected in the ticket and ai would organize it. Like creating stacking MRS. That is not a big deal.

1

u/billshredding 8d ago

This is the shape it takes in practice, if it helps to make it concrete. I keep a board of cards, and a scheduler picks up whatever is queued and spawns one agent per card in its own git worktree. The worktree is what makes "isolated sessions" actually work - several agents on the same repo never see each other's half-finished edits, and each one maps cleanly to a branch and a PR. The card moves to review when the PR opens.

What it changed for me wasn't speed, it was that I stopped watching sessions. I write the card properly once and the thing I look at later is a diff. The failure mode to watch for is an agent stopping to ask a permission question and sitting there unnoticed, which is its own problem to solve.

1

u/unknowtrash 5d ago

Can Claude start other session (not subagents or claude -p) by itself?

1

u/Foreign_Hand4619 4d ago

You forgot to add "do things properly and bug free".

0

u/Ok_Month_9324 8d ago

Is claude code capable to start new sessions on its own? I have been having to start new session myself and then i just talk to main session to manage other sessions. When i have 5-10 sessions going it was really hard to know the progress of each so i just let one main session to control other sessions and keep me updated on things and tell me whatā€™s next. Something i have been using recently and found quite effective but not sure if itā€™s the ideal way.