Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

code.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 238 posts

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#211

Post by smithcoin »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #207
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, that is a “skill issue” as the kids these days say. When used properly and with skill, agents can increase your productivity. Like any tool, use it wrong and your life will be worse off. The logically consistent view if you want to believe this study and my experience is that the average person is hindered by using AI because they do not have the skills, but there are people out there who gain a net benefit…

It drives me nuts that people take the mean of AI code generation results and use that to make claims about what AI code generation is possible of. It's like using the mean basketball player to argue that people like LeBron and Jordan don't exist.

No, we just want to point out not everybody utilizing agents ends up like LeBron or Jordan - most are Brian Scalabrine.

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#212

Post by dangus »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #173
dangus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only $200/mo… $200 a month is a used car payment. I guarantee you that price will double by 2027. Then it’ll be a new car payment! I’m really not saying this to be snarky, I’m saying this to point out that we’re really already in the enshittification phase before the rapid growth phase has even ended. You’re paying $200 and acting like that’s a cheap SaaS product for an individual. I pay less for Autocad products! Th…

> I’m saying this to point out that we’re really already in the enshittification phase before the rapid growth phase has even ended. You’re paying $200 and acting like that’s a cheap SaaS product for an individual. Traditional SaaS products don't write code for me. They also cost much less to run. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing this as enshittification. I'm not saying it won't happen some day, but I don't think w…

Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel.

The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements.

https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/cursor-prici...

https://hostbor.com/claude-ai-max-plan-explained/

We can see especially in the case of Claude AI Max that while it sounds like you’re getting better value than the cheaper plans, the company is now encouraging less efficient use of the tool (having multiple agents talking to each other, rather than improving models so that one agent is doing work correctly).

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#213

Post by jFriedensreich »

While i appreciate anthropic making a proof of concept like they did with claude code cli on which they can then do RL to optimise the patterns that work, I expect this to be as unusable as the cli itself. Its a big difference if a model provider internalises something like thinking mode which mainly depends on context and text or if they try to grab a part of the agent loop which has to run on the side of the systems we build and use.

We cannot allow model providers to own the browsers, CLIs, memory, IDEs, extensions and other tooling. Its not just a matter of power but also they just suck at it as i experience every time i have to use claude code instead of amp.

I truly hope we get the pattern of innovation that looks like:

- some dude vibecodes a really cool idea

- model providers build into their reference implementations

- model providers optimize models to work optimally

- startup and/or open source projects step in and build something that is actually usable and opens a new market segment

We saw this play out beautifully with amp, kilo, roo, cline, continue

Another aspect is that we do not want interfaces just made for agents to work in teams, we want software made for humans and agents, that are true platforms for these agent teams to collaborate in.

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#214

Post by dangus »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #180
dangus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think LLMs make me at least 10% more effective I know this was last year but... https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

I don’t need external research to validate or invalidate my own experience.

The flat earther argument.

“The research is wrong.”

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#215

Post by Wowfunhappy »

dangus wrote: post #212
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m saying this to point out that we’re really already in the enshittification phase before the rapid growth phase has even ended. You’re paying $200 and acting like that’s a cheap SaaS product for an individual. Traditional SaaS products don't write code for me. They also cost much less to run. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing this as enshittification. I'm not saying it won't happen some day, but I don't think w…

Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel. The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements. https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/cursor-prici... https://hostbor.com/claude-ai-max-plan-explained/ We can see especially in the case of Claude AI Max that…

> Traditional SaaS products literally “write code” for you (they implement business logic). See: Zapier, Excel.

Eh, I'd call those a sort of programming language. The user is still writing code, albeit in a "friendlier" manner. You can't just ask for what you want in English.

> The enshittification is that the costs are going up faster than inflation and companies like OpenAI are talking about adding advertisements.

In 1980, IT would have cost $0 at most companies. It's okay for costs to go up if you're getting a service you were not getting before.

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#216

Post by CuriouslyC »

smithcoin wrote: post #211
CuriouslyC wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It drives me nuts that people take the mean of AI code generation results and use that to make claims about what AI code generation is possible of. It's like using the mean basketball player to argue that people like LeBron and Jordan don't exist.

No, we just want to point out not everybody utilizing agents ends up like LeBron or Jordan - most are Brian Scalabrine.

For sure. I like having discussions with nuanced takes, these are tools with strengths and weaknesses and being a good tool user includes knowing when not to pick it up.

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#217

Post by __turbobrew__ »

dangus wrote: post #214
spiderfarmer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need external research to validate or invalidate my own experience.

The flat earther argument. “The research is wrong.”

I proposed a logically consistent perspective where both my experience and the study are true at the same time? What is your response to that other than comparing me to a flat earther? Do you have something useful to contribute?

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#218

Post by WXLCKNO »

dangus wrote: post #135

A cynical read of this is that it’s all a ploy to maximize usage. Why do agents need to speak to each other if they’re just doing the work correctly the first time? Is it an admission that a single agent is not useful and reliable enough?

I run a loop where I have 4 agents review in parallel after each implementation phase. It just increases the odds of finding issues.

I've switched this over to a team of 4 now that talk to each other to discuss issues they find and it's amazing. They confirm between themselves and if they wrongly identified something the others correct them.

Re: Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

#220

Post by cbovis »

resonious wrote: post #122
frde_me wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to explain, but I've found LLMs to be significantly better in the "review" stage than the implementation stage. So the LLM will do something and not catch at all that it did it badly. But the same LLM asked to review against the same starting requirement will catch the problem almost always The missing thing in these tools is that automatic feedback loop between the two LLMs: one in review mode, one in impl…

I've noticed this too and am wondering why this hasn't been baked into the popular agents yet. Or maybe it has and it just hasn't panned out?

AFAICT this is already baked into the GitHub Copilot agent. I read its sessions pretty often and reviewing/testing after writing code is a standard part of its workflow almost every time. It's kind of wild seeing how diligent it is even with the most trivial of changes.
Post reply on HN