bkotrys

That’s a good example, I believe it could be similar case like with RAG. I didn’t hear for a while about any recommendations to use RAG.

Thanks, this looks useful. The subagent and tool-use breakdown is exactly the kind of visibility I was looking for. I will give it a try.

I don’t think subagents are the problem. Uncontrolled fan-out is. Separate contexts and independent analysis are extremely useful for larger tasks. In my experience, Pro is far too limited for sustained programming, although that probably depends a lot on the kind of engineering work you do.

Fable is great, but overkill for most tasks. Sonnet and Opus are already good enough for the execution work. I find Fable much more useful for planning, orchestration, advising, and judgment.

The audit point is especially interesting. Is your Claude token-audit tool available anywhere?

Very similar experience. The review UI might actually be the most important part of the whole pipeline. Does the confidence ranking match what you end up rejecting?

At the shell level, the agent does not need to know about Bash. The contents of "$OUT" are passed to echo as one argument, then sent to claude-mem-save over stdin. Bash does not re-evaluate them as shell code. printf '%s\n' "$OUT" would be more robust than echo. Whether claude-mem-save can use arbitrary output is a separate question.