61–70 of 93 posts
Why can’t you just give access to all tools to all subagents? That’s more general than what you’ve done. Surely it can figure out how to backtrack or keep context? But I do like you approach and I feel this is the next step.
context rot. The human equivalent is saying, why cant the CEO write all the code and reply to all the emails
https://github.com/waynenilsen/crumbler
This uses recursive task decomposition but is single thread by design. Honestly fast enough for me and makes it easier to reason about
I can forgive (even root for) someone who puts in the effort themselves to understand a problem and write about it, even if they fall short or miss. They have skin in the game. I have little patience for someone who doesn't understand the disproportionate burden generated content places on the READER.
I can certainly tell they've put the model through the ringer to be terse and use simple language, etc. But I am struggling to separate the human ideas from the vibed ones, and the tone of the whole thing is the usual LLM elevator pitch with "hushed reverence" * "movie trailer cadence".
But "spawn/fork" is just a different way of labeling the fairly-well-understood tactic (I won't call it a strategy) of just how much context to provide sub-agents. Claude Code already "spawns" everytime it does an explore. It can do this concurrently, too.
Beyond that, they seem to express wonder at how well models can use tools:
> In the example above, the agent chose spawn for the independent research tasks and fork for the analysis that needs everything. It made this choice on its own — the model understands the distinction intuitively.
Emphasis mine. They (or the model whose output they blindly published) are anthropomorphizing software that is already designed to work this way. They gave it "fork" and "spawn" tools. Are they claiming they didn't describe exactly how they were supposed to be used in the tool spec?
Nice one. You should also try to make context query the first class primitive. Context query parameter can be natural language instruction how to compact current context passed to subagent. When invoking you can use values like "empty" (nothing, start fresh), "summary" (summarizes), "relevant information from web designer PoV" (specific one, extract what's relevant), "bullet points about X" etc. This way LLM can deci…
Claude basically does this now (including deciding when to use subagents, tools, and agent teams). I built a similar thing a month ago and saw the writing on the wall.
I agree, Claude does spawn subagents but subagents don't spawn sub-subagents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard. There's a reason industries have standards. If you replace established libraries with vibecoded alternatives you will have: - less documentation - less tested code - no guarantees it's doing the right thing - a dice roll for whether it works this time on this project - a bad time in general
langchain is stuck in innovator dilemma - it was built for gpt 3.5, or 4, it needs a different design for todays models, but cant evolve because of existing users and backward compatibility just like jQuery still exists and is being actively developed
Every time i see some new orchestrator framework worth more than a few hundred loc i cringe so hard. Reddit is flooded with them on the daily and HN has them on the front page occasionally. My current setup is this; - `tmux-bash` / `tmux-coding-agent` - `tmux-send` / `tmux-capture` - `semaphore_wait` The other tools all create lockfiles and semaphore_wait is a small inotify wrapper. They're all you need for 3 levels…
Has the author (not OP) written anything on this topic themselves ? This is a blunt comment, because I am fed up with being asked to read LLM content that the prompter thinks is novel and worthwhile because they don't know better. I can forgive (even root for) someone who puts in the effort themselves to understand a problem and write about it, even if they fall short or miss. They have skin in the game. I have littl…
`spawn`: "Create a spawned child node under your node."
`fork`: "Create a forked child node (inherits parent context) under your node."
The novelty is less about the distinction between the two, it's the tree generation. I would have served you better, if I just left out the parts that aren't critical to the novelty. Thank you for taking the time to comment.