axldelafosse

Wow that's really cool! Nice work

The feedback loop is faster. But PR reviews are still useful as they are multiplayer (meaning that you and another human reviewer can talk about a specific agent's comment directly on the diff, which is very useful sometimes).

They don't. And you would be surprised how a good model actually pushes back on some comments.

The point was: when they do agree, it is a very strong signal.

Yes, but what’s cool about loop is that it runs the interactive TUIs and establishes a direct connection between them. You can steer and answer questions in both sessions, not just from the main worker.

Cool! Thank you.

I’m glad someone is finally bringing this up, thank you!

What are you suggesting instead? To share the prompt in order to capture the intent? Usually I expect the plan to reflect the prompt.

I find it interesting when I create a PR after a quick session: the description really captures the intent instead of focusing on the actual implementation. I think it’s because the context is still intact, and that’s very useful.

Yeah maybe! Right now I find it useful to use different agent harnesses but as the models get better (and the agent harnesses simpler), it might be possible to get the same result with the same model. Would be cool to experiment with open-source models

Yes exactly. I’m talking about this in the article. I found out that when Claude and Codex both review the same PR and both find the same issue, our team fixes it 100% of the time.

Interesting! Feels like a good way to write docs/memories. What I like about loop is that it runs the interactive TUIs so you can answer questions in both sessions (not just the main worker). It is not human multiplayer though (but that would be cool).

I like this idea, I’ll experiment with it as part of a brainstorming skill to make the agents ask clarifying questions (to each other and to the human in the loop).

Yes, the goal is the same. This plugin is similar to the Codex gstack skill.

What makes loop different is that it lets Claude and Codex talk to each other directly (receiving messages from Claude via the Codex App Server and from Codex via Claude Code Channels). I believe this approach works even better than having one agent spawn the other and wait for its output, or read/write to a shared file.

It doesn’t mean that they are always out of scope, rather than the reviewer can be nitpicking (like humans do) and instead of addressing the comment in a follow-up PR, the change gets addressed in the same PR. So not necessarily out of scope, but it can add up and make it harder for a human to review.

That’s why I’m wondering if we should instruct the agents to act more like humans would: if the change can be done in a follow-up PR, this is probably what an experienced engineer would do.

I created the first version of loop after getting tired of doing this manually!

Good reminder: don't forget the plan review!

Oh, that's cool!

I agree! Right now it is leveraging the Codex App Server, which is open-source and very well implemented, but using Claude Code Channels is probably a bit hacky.

The good thing is that it establishes a direct connection so it's already much better than having one agent spawn the other and wait for its output, or read/write to a shared .md file -- but it would be cool to make it work for all agent harnesses.

Open to ideas! The repo is open-source.