naw103

At least fix the docs that say v3 gets security fixes

If 10 minutes is becoming 2 hours it’s hard to believe that time is being saved using AI but the first question I would ask is what business impact did it have fixing those bugs? I’m guessing probably very little since they were 3 years old.

One trap when you name AI bots specifically is that is that robots.txt groups don’t merge. Crawlers will only follow the most specific group so if GPT bot has its own group named nothing under User-agent: * applies to it anymore so you need to repeat every disallowed line under each group.

The same approach worked for us with agent runs. We gave them fewer tools up front and let the models just pull what they need

Only routine sessions right now since I didn’t want to delete anything where I had replies without a manual review but it could be easily forked and modified for all sessions

The planner file is intentionally non destructive so you can run it to preview everything first

I think Foremerge would be extremely useful in your setup especially with 25 agents running in parallel. While aoe manages the physical layout and terminal communication (ie. spawning sessions, executing commands, wrappting tmux etc.), Foremerge would act as your logical synchronization layer that prevents the agents from stepping on each others toes. They should complement each other really well. do you know what causes the coordinator agent to intrude right now? is it both plans being on the blackboard or is it being triggered by diffs or failing merges?

I encountered similar issues before I built Foremerge, ie auto router, orchestrater and shared blackboard type memory structure. The agents were aware of what was put into memory but still did their own thing and created conflicts. I still see it in claude code today when it creates subagents without Foremerge setup for the project. It resolves itself but you can see it burning through token usage to do so. If your using a single agent you dont necessarily need Foremerge but it still helps when subagents get created automatically and gives you the audit trail of intent decisions essentially at almost zero cost of having the tool installed. Where Foremerge really shines is if you bounce back and forth between claude and codex with no single parent. I dont know Weave well enough to know where it sits. The question I'd ask about any of them is what happens if you kill it? If the agents stop then it's an orchastrator, if the agents continue and you just loosed the shared picture then its a coordinator like Foremerge.

How many sessions do you typically run at once and are they all children of the same parent?

Thats exactly what we've seen using this in our development workflows at GPTree since Jan and why we opensourced it. I really think this becomes an essential new part of the dev stack as coding with multiple agents in parallel increases even more. What I cant count right now is the rework a missed one costs because that dosnt surface until a fix commit possibly days later and thats the measurement Im trying to find a clever way to get. Worse case is though that you would still have that conflict even without using Foremerge. The difference is how much trust you can put in the final code.

It dosnt stop an agent, claims are advisory. I mostly answered this in my comment of questions that I normally get asked above. The only hard stop is at acceptance, and only for HIGH signals. HIGH is reserved for something the toll can state as fact rather than guess about. ie. both agents declared the same scope and one agent destroys (replace, rename, remove) the thing the other agent is building on (extend, modify). Whether an overlap is fine is a judgement that Foremerge dosnt make itself and thats by design. The agents are smart enough and determine this themselves after receiving the advisory. For a HIGH signal the agents coordinate through messages and either agent resolves it with a logged rationale that unblocks it for both (a human can override it with a logged reason too). The idea is that every path out leaves a decision log behind so later you can see not just that two plans overlapped but what was decided and why. (I think this has a good compliance angle to it as well)