Love this! AI agents can be so abstract to many people and this project really makes it feel much more approachable. Makes me think of Game Dev Story! Would be awesome to see little thinking bubbles over them to show what they are doing. Ultimately I see promise in making it easier to visually see what is happening in the system.
As a visual-oriented person I can completly agree. Being able to visualze makes things make so much more sense.
Completely agree, we found it helped explaining it to our non-technical friends as well.<p>We do have thinking bubbles but they only show up based on the task the agent is doing. Perhaps we'll add a toggle or something to give people the option to have them always on.
I like the visualization, but in terms of orchestration, how does it compare to CC’s built in agent swarms?
"animal crossing-style" is a bit of a stretch
Yeah, I was expecting something like the Animal Crossing dialog bubble or something. At least put Tom Nook as the boss character.
yeah.. maybe should have said "inspired by"
The parallel agent coordination is what makes this interesting. Most agent wrappers are just single-agent loops with extra steps.
Maybe a bit of an odd one, but can you decorate the office? I'm wondering like have you abstracted the decor elements into something that is straightforward to extend? How easily could I give my office a new espresso machine or something?
This is a fun question. The answer is yes, you can redecorate and move things around.<p>Right now it's all built in phaser, and furniture is pretty straight forward to build and deploy. But it requires modifying the source. We want to add support for easy drop in decoration in future updates.
The group-based orchestration approach is smart — having agents work on different files in parallel within a group, then passing to the next group, sidesteps a lot of the merge conflict pain you'd get from naive concurrent file edits. Curious how it handles the case where Agent A's changes to module X break the interface that Agent B in the same group expects from module Y. Do you do any kind of dependency analysis before assigning tasks to groups, or is it purely based on file-level separation?<p>The deny list for auto-approval is a pragmatic solution. In practice I've found the hard part isn't blocking obviously dangerous commands like rm -rf, it's the long tail of commands that are safe in one context but destructive in another (e.g. git checkout on a file with unstaged changes). Would be interested to know if you're tracking which auto-approved commands end up causing issues to refine the defaults over time.
Right now purely file level. But the dependency analysis is really intelligent and we'll figure out what that would look like.<p>The long-tail point is true. We don't do any tracking in our implementation, but we've been trying hard to refine our total our total permissions approach to think about more edge cases such as this, while not being too annoying. We think this is a general tricky issue with AI alignment ('do what I mean not what I say').
Sorry, but there's not even a single hint of a visual relationship to Animal Crossing here. I believe this title is inaccurate.
iMessage is the one that changes the category for me. "Agents that can text real people" is a different thing than a multi-agent demo. I've been hacking on something similar and the hardest problem wasn't orchestration it was figuring out when to bother a human vs. just deciding. How does auto-approval work, is it all-or-nothing or per task?
There are two levels of auto approve, first level is auto-edit which is basic read and write, and basic bash tools (these can be configured to be any arbitrary bash command).<p>The second level is called auto approve and is for more complex bash commands. Generally the model will ask permission before running one of these big commands, but you can allow all. Right now, it's global across the instance, but we're working on making it more granular.<p>Also, there is a deny list of certain commands which you can customize to prevent bad behavior (like rm -rf, etc...)<p>We want to wire the approval process to imessage or whatever channel, but we need to first auth the imessage session to make sure it's coming through from the owner and not someone else communicating through the same channel.
Haha this is really cool! I imagine it would be a nice tool to teach kids about working with agents.
Love the pixel office. Such a fun way to make multi-agent work less abstract. Being able to actually watch agents walk to their desks and pick up tasks makes it way easier to follow what's happening than staring at terminal logs. Curious if the orchestrator handles cases where two agents need to edit the same file.
Thank you James, great question! Generally, when the orchestrator assigns parallel work it does it in groups, with everyone in the group working on different files. When the group is done it passes the work to the next group which can then edit those same files.<p>We're working on simultaneous editing of the same files using git, but we want to ensure changes are merged in an intelligent way.
this seems interesting. Will give it a spin this weekend.
does it use the claude code api or the claude code cli? You know, the claude code api is more expensive.<p>I also hope it can have a webapp version, rather than electron. because most of our work are on a remote server.
[dead]
[flagged]