[1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...

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.

What I was hoping would be that I could effectively farm out work to my metaphorical AI intern while I get to focus on fun and/or interesting work. Sometimes that is what happens and it makes me very happy when it does. A lot of the time, however, it generates code that is wrong, or incomplete (while claiming it is complete), and so I end up having to babysit the code, either by further prompting or just editing the code.

And then it makes a lot of software engineering become "type prompt, sit and wait a minute, look at the code, repeat", which means I'm decidedly not focusing the fun part of the project and instead I'm just larping as a manager who backseat codes.

A friend of mine said that he likes to do this backwards: he writes a lot of the code himself and then he uses Claude Code to debug and automate writing tedious stuff like unit tests, and I think that might make it a little less mind numbing.

Also, very tangential, and maybe my prompting game isn't completely on point here, but Codex seems decidedly bad at concurrent code [1]. I was working on some lock-free data store stuff, and Codex really wanted to add a bunch of lock files that were wholly unnecessary. Oh, and it kept trying to add mutexes into Rust, no matter how many times I tell it I don't want locks and it should use one-shot channels instead. To be fair, when I went and fixed the functions myself in a few spots and then told it to use that as an example, it did get a little better.

[1] I think this particular case is because it's trained on example code from Github and most code involving concurrency uses locks (incorrectly or at least sub-optimally). I guess this particular problem may be more of the fault of American universities teaching concurrent programming incorrectly at the undergrad level.

Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?

Do they?

There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.

Do they? How much better are multiple agents on your evals, and what sort of evals are you running? I've also research that suggests that more agents degrades the output after a point.

I LOLd at that. Things in AI space become obsolete much faster. I'd say just go with GPL or AGPL if you don't want proprietary software to be built on top of your code

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…

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.

Hey HN! Quick update on Mysti based on your feedback:

1- Mysti now supports GitHub Copilot CLI as a fourth provider. So you can now do Claude Code + Copilot (running GPT-5) in Brainstorm mode, or any combination of the 4 providers. Mix and match based on what catches different issues.

2- Mysti is now MIT Licensed. Switched from BSL 1.1 to MIT. 3- Better Auth UX When a CLI isn't authenticated, you now get a friendly error with one-click "Open Terminal & Authenticate" instead of cryptic CLI errors.

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.

links to: https://deepmyst.com/ Site 404's.

> Made with Mysti

Ringing endorsement.

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.

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-...

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.

If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.

That may solve the original problem of paying for three different models.

https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council