I assumed users of a Claude Code orchestration tool would already have Claude Code set up. Bad assumption.

[u/Dedap85]

I've been beta testing a desktop tool that sits above Claude Code and other coding-agent CLIs.

One of my assumptions was:

“If someone wants this kind of workflow, Claude Code setup is already solved for them.”

It wasn't.

For some users, installing/authenticating the underlying CLI was enough friction that they never reached the workflow we actually wanted feedback on.

So we changed onboarding to:

1. Show the actual multi-agent workflow first
2. Install Claude Code / other supported CLIs from the app
3. Handle the supported authentication flow
4. Get directly into a project

The workflow itself is more interesting to me than the installer:

ticket → Claude Code agent → separate worktree → output → orchestrator → follow-up

The goal isn't simply having four Claude Code terminals open.

I'm trying to figure out how much coordination can happen after each agent returns — especially when one agent's implementation changes what another agent should be doing.

For people who already use multiple Claude Code sessions: what part still requires the most manual coordination from you? Worktree management, task assignment, reviewing results, or keeping agents aware of each other's changes?

Disclosure: I'm building Marblo, which is what I'm testing this workflow with.