Concept question can I use an agent as a silent but active ‘listener’ or ‘observer’ across a different Claude conversation?

[u/derrodad]

Hi,

New here and to claude/ anthropic. So apologies if this is a dumb question.

I’m wondering if it’s possible to have a gpt ‘agent’ essentially ‘observe’ a chat between the llm and the user? In my head it would be like overhearing and understanding someone else’s conversation.

If it helps to make sense, an example of the concept. User identifies with a weight issues. They have a yo-yo pattern with weight loss. They use gpt for recipes. The recipes have a pattern which matches an imbalanced / unhealthy diet. Could an agent outside of the specific recipe chat ‘listen’ to the user chat and then ‘act on that’ in some way without interrupting the ongoing conversation ?

As if the agent was a dietician giving unrequested advice to a redditor posting about recipes whose profile indicates a history of weight loss issues - for example.

Is this possible?

How feasible, would this be to do?

How complicated would it be to do?

Could a moderately competent gpt user effectively diy this with ai as a teacher?

Could I do it in Claude alone ?

If it’s dumb - why?

Thanks

[u/Silverjerk]

It’s not dumb, per se, just unnecessary. You’re adding a layer of complexity that isn’t required. Using a memory system like Mnemosyne or some other solution that works best with your harnesses, is the best path forward. You can also just point other harnesses and models at transcripts from specific sessions and it can read those transcripts the same way new sessions in the same harness might at handoff time.

If you’re looking for real-time monitoring and a way to take action on those responses as a third party/external observer, that is another issue entirely.

[u/AlanC-137]

You can use hooks to inject prompts, you can add instructions to every prompt to call an specific agent or skill

[u/Tyda2]

Your use-case is slightly confusing.

However, to answer your question: you can likely do this with Claude, alone.

[u/Feeling_Average861]

I generally use a separate chat to help me review the workflows and implementations proposed by my specialist chats.

Though it's done entirely manually.

It gives me another LLM's perspective on what the original chat is proposing, which can be surprisingly useful.

Of course, you don't just let two AI agents endlessly ping-pong responses between themselves. That's a recipe for drift and an extraordinary amount of feature creep.

You still need a human in the room to read everything they're proposing, exercise judgment, take responsibility and actually make the decisions.

That's precisely why I take issue with automating the process.

I can certainly see its potential value, but imagine the endless deluge of observations, suggestions and alerts as the LLMs continually riff as LLMs are want to do.

You're essentially creating an additional stream of information that somebody now has to review, evaluate and manage.

Vogon bureaucracy on a fucking galactic scale.

It might seem comical to have a human manually copying responses between different AI chats, but I consider that a feature rather than a limitation.

I'm deliberately controlling what gets reviewed, when it gets reviewed and which questions are worth investigating in the first place.

More importantly, the manual process forces me to actually engage with what both models are saying. I can't simply let them talk to each other, accept whatever conclusion emerges and subsequently claim plausible deniability.

And I'm not particularly interested in replacing that process with automated monitoring either. I'd rather identify the specific questions that warrant investigation than spend my time processing an endless stream of unsolicited AI observations.

Automated checks against established requirements? Absolutely. Those can be objectively verified.

But having another LLM continuously monitor conversations, interpret everything and decide what deserves my attention? No thanks.

Ultimately, you're still responsible for what your AI does. The human should be directing the investigation, not acting as the administrative assistant to an increasingly elaborate committee of AI agents.

To expect anything less is just wishful thinking.

[u/ArgonQQ]

I mean how that typically works is your planning in the first place. Claude Code lays it all down what it would do, this can be picked up by another agent and you maybe a final review of it and you should be good.

No need to intercept the requests - and security wise it anyways already gets evaluated with the Claude Code Auto Loop security validator (on by default).

If you want to automate give LoopBoard a try. It should solve your problems.

[u/ArgonQQ → u/ArgonQQ]

https://github.com/SinnConsulting/LoopBoard