[HN Gopher] Show HN: Mysti - Claude, Codex, and Gemini debate yo...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Mysti - Claude, Codex, and Gemini debate your code, then
synthesize
Hey HN! I'm Baha, creator of Mysti. The problem: I pay for Claude
Pro, ChatGPT Plus, and Gemini but only one could help at a time. On
tricky architecture decisions, I wanted a second opinion. The
solution: Mysti lets you pick any two AI agents (Claude Code,
Codex, Gemini) to collaborate. They each analyze your request,
debate approaches, then synthesize the best solution. Your prompt
- Agent 1 analyzes - Agent 2 analyzes - Discussion - Synthesized
solution Why this matters: each model has different training and
blind spots. Two perspectives catch edge cases one would miss. It's
like pair programming with two senior devs who actually discuss
before answering. What you get: * Use your existing subscriptions
(no new accounts, just your CLI tools) * 16 personas (Architect,
Debugger, Security Expert, etc) * Full permission control from
read-only to autonomous * Unified context when switching agents
Tech: TypeScript, VS Code Extension API, shells out to claude-
code/codex-cli/gemini-cli License: BSL 1.1, free for personal and
educational use, converts to MIT in 2030 (would love input on this,
does it make sense to just go MIT?) GitHub:
https://github.com/DeepMyst/Mysti Would love feedback on the
brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am
I just solving my own niche problem?
Author : bahaAbunojaim
Score : 153 points
Date : 2025-12-23 13:18 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| mlrtime wrote:
| Why make it a vscode extension if the point of these 3 tools is a
| cli interface? Meaning most of the people I know use these tools
| without VSCode. Is VSC required?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| That's a great idea! I can make it a CLI too
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without
| VSCode.
|
| I guess it depends?
|
| You can usually count on Claude Code or Codex or Gemini CLI to
| support the model features the best, but sometimes having a
| consistent UI across all of them is also nice - be it another
| CLI tool like OpenCode (that was a bit buggy for me when it
| came to copying text), or maybe Cline/RooCode/KiloCode inside
| of VSC, so you don't also have to install a custom editor like
| Cursor but can use your pre-existing VSC setup.
|
| Okay, that was a bit of a run on sentence, but it's nice to be
| able to work on some context and then to switch between
| different models inline: "Hey Sonnet, please look at the work
| of the previous model up until this point and validate its
| findings about the cause of this bug."
|
| I'd also love it if I could hook up some of those models
| (especially what Cerebras Code offers) with autocomplete so I
| wouldn't need Copilot either, but most of the plugins that try
| to do that are pretty buggy or broken (e.g. Continue.dev).
| KiloCode also added autocomplete, but it doesn't seem to work
| with BYOK.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Very true, I like the fact that I can now use them with a
| consistent UI, shared context and ability to brainstorm
|
| Will definitely try to add those features in a future release
| as well
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Huh. I know hundreds that use LLMs in a VSCode based IDE, and 3
| that use the CLI.
| datameta wrote:
| I was a proponent initially of CLI when Claude integration
| with VSCode required a WSL instance, but now that it is
| integrated directly into VSCode I feel one grouping of
| tooling hiccups is now ruled out in my workflow. The only
| (major) nitpick I have is that it wont let you finish typing
| and cuts you off when asking whether/how to proceed.
| tiku wrote:
| Anyone knows of something similar but for terminal?
|
| Update:
|
| I've already found a solution based on a comment, and modified it
| a bit.
|
| Inside claude code i've made a new agent that uses the MCP gemini
| through https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp. this seems to
| work!
|
| Claude code:
|
| Now let me launch the Gemini MCP specialist to build the backend
| monitoring server:
|
| gemini-mcp-specialist(Build monitoring backend server) [?]
| Running PreToolUse hook...
| rane wrote:
| My similar workflow within Claude Code when it gets stuck is to
| have it consult Gemini. Works either through Gemini CLI or the
| API. Surprisingly powerful pattern because I've just found that
| Gemini is still ahead of Opus in architectural reasoning and
| figuring out difficult bugs. https://github.com/raine/consult-
| llm-mcp
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I actually built it but wanted to
| make it more generalized to work with any agent and on the
| same context without switching
| tiku wrote:
| I like this solution that you can ask Gemini
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Any other ideas that you think would make it more powerful?
| tiku wrote:
| Perhaps that you can tell it to "use gemini for task x,
| claude for task y" as sub-agents.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| How about adding the ability to tag an agent. for
| example:
|
| @gemini could you review the code and then provide a
| summary to @claude?
|
| @claude can you write the classes based on an
| architectural review by @codex
|
| What do you think? Does that make sense ?
| pella wrote:
| https://github.com/just-every/code "Every Code - push frontier
| AI to it limits. A fork of the Codex CLI with validation,
| automation, browser integration, multi-agents, theming, and
| much more. Orchestrate agents from OpenAI, Claude, Gemini or
| any provider." Apache 2.0 ; Community fork;
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| When you say orchestrate agents then what it would do? Would
| it allow the same context across agents and can I make agents
| brainstorm?
| pella wrote:
| # Plan code changes (Claude, Gemini and GPT-5 consensus)
| # All agents review task and create a consolidated plan
| /plan "Stop the AI from ordering pizza at 3AM" #
| Solve complex problems (Claude, Gemini and GPT-5 race)
| # Fastest preferred (see https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17813)
| /solve "Why does deleting one user drop the whole
| database?" # Write code! (Claude, Gemini and
| GPT-5 consensus) # Creates multiple worktrees then
| implements the optimal solution /code "Show dark mode
| when I feel cranky" # Hand off a multi-step
| task; Auto Drive will coordinate agents and approvals
| /auto "Refactor the auth flow and add device login"
| ggggffggggg wrote:
| > Note: If another tool already provides a code command (e.g.
| VS Code), our CLI is also installed as coder. Use coder to
| avoid conflicts.
|
| "If", oh, idk, just the tool 90% of potential users will have
| installed.
| vulture916 wrote:
| Pal MCP (formerly Zen) is pretty awesome.
|
| https://github.com/BeehiveInnovations/pal-mcp-server
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Will give it a look indeed, I think one of the challenges
| with the MCP approach is that the context need to be passed
| and that would add to the overhead of the main agent. Is that
| right?
| vulture916 wrote:
| The CLINK command will spawn separate CLI.
|
| Don't quote me, but I think the other methods rely on
| passing general detail/commands and file paths to Gemini to
| avoid the context overhead you're thinking about.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I can make it for the terminal if that would be helpful, what
| do you think?
| esafak wrote:
| http://opencode.ai/
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Interesting indeed but would it behave the same as Claude
| code or will it have its own behavior, I think the system
| prompt is one of the key things that differentiate every
| agent
| esafak wrote:
| I do not understand your question. Even in Claude code you
| have access to multiple models. You can have one critique
| the other.
| tikimcfee wrote:
| Here's a portable binary you drop in a directory to allow
| agentic cli to cross communicate with other agents, store and
| read state, or act as the driver of arbitrary tmux sessions in
| parallel: https://github.com/tikimcfee/gomuxai
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| This is very interesting, maybe I can also integrate it into
| Mysti
| tikimcfee wrote:
| Happy to help build said integration with ya, feel free to
| post an issue, fork, or send me a dm. The tool itself
| exposes the internal DB as well so others with interest can
| access logs, context, etc.
| Tarrosion wrote:
| > Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just
| solving my own niche problem?
|
| I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code
| reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things.
| I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a
| nice interface.
|
| If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be
| excited to try it out when back at work.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Would love to hear your feedback! Please let me know if I can
| make it any better or if there is anything that would make it
| very useful
| altmanaltman wrote:
| > Would love feedback on the brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent
| collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche
| problem?
|
| If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually
| useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| True and hearing feedback is always helpful and helps validate
| if it is a common problem or not
| Alifatisk wrote:
| This reminds me a lot of eye2.ai, but outside of coding
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I will check it out indeed. What is common between the two?
| Alifatisk wrote:
| I guess both consult multiple llms and draw conclusion from
| them to cover blindspots
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I think the main difference is that Mysti consults with
| agents rather than the underlying LLM and in the future
| potentially the agents can switch LLMs as well
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| A workflow I find useful is to have multiple CLI agents running
| in different Tmux panes and have one consult/delegate to another
| using my Tmux-CLI [1] tool + skill. Advantage of this is that the
| agents' work is fully visible and I can intervene as needed.
|
| [1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-
| tools?tab=readme-o...
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I will look it up indeed
| sharifabdel wrote:
| What prompted you to build this?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I used to get stuck sometimes with Claude and needing a
| different agent to take a look and the switch back and forth
| between those agents is a headache and also you won't be able
| to port all the context so thought this might help solve real
| blockers for many devs on larger projects
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| I have both Codex and Claude subs so I wanted one to be able
| to consult the other. Also it's useful when you have a cli
| script that an agent is iterating on, so it can test it.
| Another use case is for a CLI agent to run a debugger like
| PDB in another pane, though I haven't used it much.
| petesergeant wrote:
| I've had good success with a similar workflow, most recently
| using it to help me build out a captive-wifi debugger[0]. In
| short, it worked _pretty_ well, but it was quite time
| intensive. That said, I think removing the human from the loop
| would have been insanity on this: lots of situations where
| there were some very poor ideas suggested that the other LLMs
| went along with, and others where one LLM was the sole voice of
| reason against the other two.
|
| I think my only real take-away from all of it was that Claude
| is probably the best at prototyping code, where Codex make a
| very strong (but pedantic) code-reviewer. Gemini was all over
| the place, sometimes inspired, sometimes idiotic.
|
| 0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| This is exactly why I built Mysti because I used that flow
| very often and it worked well, I also added personas and
| skills so that it is easy to customize the agents behavior
| and if you have any ideas to make the behavior better then
| please don't hesitate to share! Happy to jump on a call and
| discuss it as well
| throwaway12345t wrote:
| This is cool, if Codex or Gemini CLI is supported it would be
| good to have a section in the readme indicating shortcomings
| etc (may have missed)
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Claude code, Gemini and codex are all supported but need more
| testing so I would really value the feedback, bug reports and
| contributions as well :D
|
| Contributions will be highly appreciated and credited
| tikimcfee wrote:
| The idea works well with or without direct integration. You
| can have a cli agent read arbitrary state of any tmux session
| and have it drive work through it. I use it for everything
| from dev work to system debugging. It turns out a portable
| and callable binary with simple parameters is still easier to
| use for agents than protocols and skills:
| https://github.com/tikimcfee/gomuxai
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| There's no special support needed; it's just a bash command
| that any CLI agent can use. For agents that have skills, the
| corresponding skill helps leverage more easily. I'll add that
| to the README
| bikeshaving wrote:
| I have a similar workflow except I haven't put time into the
| tooling - Claude is adept at TMUX and it can almost even prompt
| and respond to ChatGPT except it always forgets to press Enter
| when it sends keys. Have your agents been able to communicate
| with each other with tmux send-keys?
| zingar wrote:
| What are you asking/expecting Claude to do with tmux?
| bikeshaving wrote:
| I find that asking Claude to develop and Codex to review
| the uncommitted changes will typically result in high-value
| code, and eliminate all of Claude's propensity to
| perpetually lie and cheat. Sometimes I also ideate with
| Claude and then ask Claude to get ChatGPT's opinion on the
| matter. I started by copy-pasting responses but I found
| tmux to be a nice way to get rid of the middleman.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| I had the same issue. Subagents are nice but the LLM calling
| them can't have a back and forth conversation. I tried tmux-
| cli and even other options like AgentAPI[0] but the same
| issue persists, the agent can't have a back and forth with
| the tmux pane.
|
| To people asking why would you want Claude to call Codex or
| Gemini, it's because of orchestration. We have an architect
| skill we feed the first agent. That agent can call subagents
| or even use tmux and feed in the builder skill. The architect
| is harnessed to a CRUD application just keeping track of what
| features were built already so the builder is focused on
| building only.
|
| 0. https://github.com/coder/agentapi
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Yes this and other edge cases is why I made the Tmux-CLI
| wrapper. Yes they use send-keys with suitable delays etc
| vidarh wrote:
| Have you considered using their command line options instead?
| At least Codex and Claude both support feeding in new prompts
| in an ongoing conversation via the command line, and can return
| text or stream JSON back.
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| You mean so-called headless or non-interactive mode? Yes I've
| considered that but the advantage communication via Tmux
| panes is that all agent work is fully visible and you can
| intervene as needed.
|
| My repo has other tools that leverage such headless agents;
| for example there's a resume [1] functionality that provides
| alternatives to compaction (which is not great since it
| always loses valuable context details): The "smart-trim"
| feature uses a headless agent to find irrelevant long
| messages for truncation, and the "rollover" feature creates a
| new session and injects session lineage links, with a
| customizable extraction of context for the task to be
| continued.
|
| [1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-
| tools?tab=readme-o...
| danr4 wrote:
| licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is
| changing is not a smart decision.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Thinking of switching to MIT, what do you think? Is there any
| other license you would recommend ?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| AGPL, it requires anyone who creates a derivative to publish
| the code of said derivative.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Good idea! Very good point
| rynn wrote:
| > licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is
| changing is not a smart decision
|
| This turned me off as well. Especially with no published
| pricing and a link to a site that is not about this product.
|
| At minimum, publish pricing.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| It is free and open source. Will make it MIT
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Done and converted to MIT
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Regarding DeepMyst. In the future will offer "optionally" the
| ability to use smart context where the context will be
| automatically optimized such that you won't hit the context
| window limit " basically no need for compact" and you would
| get much higher usage limits because the number of tokens
| needed will be reduced by up to 80% so you would be able to
| achieve with a 20 USD claude plan the same as the Pro plan
| tacone wrote:
| I strongly suggest to also allow to define a non
| summarizable part of the context so that behavioral rules
| stay sharp.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I agree and this is part of what DeepMyst is capable of
| doing
| tacone wrote:
| Is it already there? Pretty cool.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| The project is now MIT!
| prashantsengar wrote:
| This is very useful! I frequently copy the response of one model
| and ask another to review it and I have seen really good results
| with that approach.
|
| Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would
| allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it
| allows to use multiple models.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I'm planning to add Cursor and Cline in the next major release,
| will try to get in out in Jan
| reachableceo wrote:
| Please also add qwen cli support
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Will do. I was thinking of also making the LLMs
| configurable across the agents. I saw a post from the
| founder of openrouter that you can use DeepSeek with Claude
| code and was thinking of making it possible to use more
| LLMs across agents
| dunkmaster wrote:
| Any benchmarks? For example vs a single model?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| It would be great if the community can run some benchmarks and
| post it on the repo, planning to do that sometime in Jan
| p1esk wrote:
| Why limit to 2 agents? I typically use all 3.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Planning to make it work without that limit, did that to avoid
| complexity but contributions are welcome
|
| I think once I add cursor and cline then will also try to make
| it work with any number of agents
| adiga1005 wrote:
| I have been using it for some time and it getting better and
| better with time in many cases it's giving better output than
| other tools the comparison is great feature too keep up the good
| work
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Thank you so much! Let me know if you face any issues and happy
| to address it
| DenisM wrote:
| Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future. All agents
| have blind spots, collaboration is how they are offset.
|
| You may want to study [1] - this is the latest thinking on agent
| collaboration from Google.
|
| [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-
| the-...
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Thank you so much for sharing Denis! I definitely believe in
| the that as the world start switching from single agent to
| agentic teams where each agent does have specific capabilities.
| do you know of any benchmarks that covers collaborative agents
| ?
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future
|
| Autogen from ms was an early attempt at this, and it was fun to
| play with it, but too early (the models themselves kinda
| crapped out after a few convos). This would work much better
| today with how long agents can stay on track.
|
| There was also a finding earlier this year, I believe from the
| swe-bench guys (or hf?), where they saw better scores with
| alternating between gpt5/sonnet4 after each call during an
| execution flow. The scores of alternating between them were
| higher than any of them individually. Found that interesting at
| the time.
| sorokod wrote:
| Have you tried executing multiple agents on a single model with
| modified prompts and have them try to reach consensus?
|
| That may solve the original problem of paying for three different
| models.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I think you will still pay for 3 times the tokens for a single
| model rather than 3 but will consolidate payment.
|
| I was thinking to make the model choice more dynamic per agent
| such that you can use any model with any agent and have one
| single payment for all so you won't repeat and pay for 3 or
| more different tools. Is that in line with what you are saying
| ?
| sorokod wrote:
| Neither the original issue (having three models) nor this one
| (un consolidated payments) have anything to do with the end
| result / quality of the output.
|
| Can you comment on that?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Executing multiple agents on the same model also works.
|
| I find it helpful to even change the persona of the same
| agent "the prompt" or the model the agent is using. These
| variations always help but I found having multiple
| different agents with different LLMs in the backend works
| better
| markab21 wrote:
| I love where you're going with this. In my experience
| it's not about a different persona, it's about constantly
| considering context that triggers, different activations
| enhance a different outcome. You can achieve the same
| thing, of course by switching to an agent with a separate
| persona, but you can also get it simply by injecting new
| context, or forcing the agent to consider something new.
| I feel like this concept gets cargo-culted a little bit.
|
| I personally have moved to a pattern where i use mastra-
| agents in my project to achieve this. I've slowly shifted
| the bulk of the code research and web research to my
| internal tools (built with small typescript agents).. I
| can now really easily bounce between different tools such
| as claude, codex, opencode and my coding tools are
| spending more time orchestrating work than doing the work
| themselves.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Thank you and I do like the mantra-agents concept as well
| and would love to explore adding something similar in the
| future such that you can quickly create subagents and
| assign tasks to them
| sorokod wrote:
| (BTW, givent token cashing your argument of 3 x 1 = 1 x 3
| deserves more scrutiny)
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| That might be true but if you change the system
| instructions "which is at the beginning of the prompt"
| then caching doesn't hit. So different agents would most
| likely skip caching unless the last prompt is different
| then you get the benefit of caching indeed
| mmaunder wrote:
| Yeah having codex eval its own commits is highly effective. For
| example.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I agree, I find it very helpful to ask agents to think using
| a different persona too
| RobotToaster wrote:
| That sounds like it could get expensive?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Not if you optimize the tokens used. This is what DeepMyst
| actually do, one of the things we offer is token optimization
| where we can reduce up to 80% of the context so even if you use
| twice the optimized context you will end up with 60% less
| tokens.
|
| Note that this functionality is not yet integrated with Mysti
| but we are planning to add it in the near future and happy to
| accelerate.
|
| I think token optimization will help with larger projects,
| longer context and avoiding compact.
| MrDunham wrote:
| Website link on Github points to https://deepmyst.com/
|
| But actually hosted on https://www.deepmyst.com/ with no
| forwarding from the Apex domain to www so it looks like the
| website is down.
|
| Otherwise excited to deep dive into this as this is a variant of
| how we do development and seems to work great when the AI fights
| each other.
| csomar wrote:
| It's a good thing (/s) that Chrome now hides that fact. So it
| looks like the same domain is down on one tab and working on
| the other.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I've never seen a profession change so fast as coding right now
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Have to keep in mind that what is happening now is basically
| what was promised decades ago. Never mind 4GL, 5GL, expert
| systems, and other efforts that went nowhere... even COBOL was
| created with the intention of making programming look more like
| natural language.
|
| Often, revolutions take longer to happen than we think they
| will, and then they happen faster than we think they will. And
| when the tipping point is finally reached, we find more people
| pushing back than we thought there would be.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural
| human language, the same way as low level languages replaced
| by high level languages. It is the natural evolution of
| development.
|
| On the other hand agentic teams will take over solo agents.
| cheema33 wrote:
| I created a simple skill in Claude Code CLI that collaborates
| with Codex CLI. It is just a prompt saved in the skill format. It
| uses subagents as well.
|
| Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill
| that does the same work?
| achille wrote:
| Could you share your skill and workflow? does claude launch
| codex in a tmux session?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| The skill would allow Claude Code CLI to call Codex CLI but
| then Claude Code CLI will need to pass context to Codex which
| would require writing the context "which causes latency" and
| this process of writing the context will provide limited
| context to Codex and also eat up from the main context window.
| Mysti shares the context which is very different from passing
| context as a parameter.
| dwa3592 wrote:
| >Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex (OpenAI), and Gemini (Google)
| have different training, different strengths, and different blind
| spots.
|
| Do they?
|
| There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to
| produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I usually switch agents when one agent get stuck and I faced
| several situations where one agent solved a problem that the
| other agent was stuck on
| monkeydust wrote:
| [2510.22954] Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of
| Language Models (and Beyond)
| https://share.google/1GHdUvhz2uhF4PVFU
| danielfalbo wrote:
| How do we measure this is any better than just using 1 good
| model?
| bandrami wrote:
| One day someone will actually build something with an LLM and
| do a write-up of it, but until then we'll just keep reading
| about tooling.
| Closi wrote:
| Anecdotal experience, but when bugfixing I personally find if a
| model introduces a bug, it has a hard time spotting and fixing
| it, but when you give the code to another model it can
| instantly spot it (even if it's a weaker model overall).
|
| So I can well imagine that this sort of approach could work
| very well, although agree with your sentiment that measurement
| would be good.
| taf2 wrote:
| For me when it's front end I usually work with Claude and have
| codex review. Otherwise I just work with codex... Claude also if
| I'm being lazy and want a thing quickly
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Gemini is also great at frontends nowadays. I think every agent
| does have strengths and capabilities
| csar wrote:
| Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because
| you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models _may_ help
| though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you're
| increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2
| LLM's quirks).
|
| But the "playing house" approach of experts is somewhere between
| pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I
| thought people abandoned that later in the summer.
|
| If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things,
| or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing
| docs), that's useful. But there's. I need for all these personas.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| The way it works is that each agent think independently,
| discuss the solution and each agent opinion then one will
| synthesize a solution.
| csar wrote:
| I understand. My point is that the personas are generally not
| a good idea and that there are much simpler and more
| predictable ways of getting better results.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Sounds very similar to LLM council
|
| https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Thanks for sharing, I will check it out
| deepsummer wrote:
| Great idea. Whether brainstorm mode is actually useful is hard to
| say without trying it out, but it sounds like an interesting
| approach. Maybe it would be a good idea to try running a SWE
| benchmark with it.
|
| Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try
| out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am
| quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write
| more code than tinker with settings or personas.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Fair enough on personas, I like to activate skills more than
| personas, for example I activate the auto commit skill to
| ensure the agent would automatically commit after finishing a
| feature
| nickphx wrote:
| how would using multiple services that are incapable of
| performing the work correctly result in better work?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| This follows a concept called wisdom of the crowd
| thomas_witt wrote:
| Codex CLI can run as MCP server ootb which you can call directly
| from Claude code. Together with a prompt to ask codex for a
| second opinion, that works very well for me, especially in code
| reviews.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| But then codex won't have the full context of your existing
| work and might need to go through its own exploratory path
| matt3210 wrote:
| For only 3x the cost
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| Not if you optimize the context
| tacone wrote:
| Interesting, I was trying to implement this using AGENTS.md and
| the runSubagent tool in vscode. Vscode has not yet the capability
| to invoke different models as subagent so I plan to fallback to
| instructing copilot to use copilot-cli and gemini-cli. (I am
| quite angry about copilot CLI offering only full blown models and
| not the -mini versions though)
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| I'm planning to add copilot, cursor and cline but feel free to
| contribute to the repo if you would like to do that and will
| look for ways to use the mini versions of the models as well
| when I integrate copilot CLI
| tacone wrote:
| Problem is, Copilot CLI doesn't really supports free or mini
| models. You have very tight choice of models. This looks like
| product decision. I understand why they won't allow you to
| use the free models on CLI, but not being able to use the
| (pay for) mini models is beyond me.
| ekropotin wrote:
| How it's different from PAL MCP (ex ZEN MCP)?
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| With an MCP the agent needs to write the context to be passed
| to the MCP then the MCP would run the underlying CLI with that
| context. Mysti works differently by sharing context directly
| with the CLIs.
| bahaAbunojaim wrote:
| UPDATE: License is now MIT! Super excited to see your
| contributions and feedback!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-27 23:00 UTC)