It's a combination of reasoning effort (max) + enabling workflow that orchestrates multiple sub-agents.

After some interrogation, here's how it organized the work:

1. Design workflow (rts-game-design, 11 agents, ~13 min) ran first, produced SPEC.md + DESIGN.md:

1.1. Proposals (3 parallel agents): each designed a complete RTS from a different philosophy

1.2 Judge (1 agent): evaluated all three and synthesized one unified design, committing to specific numbers (costs, HP, map size, etc.).

1.3 Deep-dives (6 parallel agents): each wrote an implementation-ready spec for one subsystem, all consistent with the chosen design

1.4 Synthesis (1 agent): merged the design + all six subsystem specs into one conflict-free master spec

2. Code-review workflow (rts-code-review, 25 agents, ~5 min), ran after the main agent had written and tested the code:

2.1 Review (6 agents, read-only Explore type): each scrutinized one dimension and returned structured findings.

2.2. Verify (19 agents): every finding got its own skeptic agent told to try to refute it, Result: 19 flagged → 16 confirmed, 3 rejected as non-bugs.

What the main agent did in the main loop:

- Wrote all ~2,400 lines of index.html by hand from the spec.

- All browser testing/debugging via headless Chrome (I told it to use rodney by @simonw, love the tool :)

- Applied all 16 fixes from the review and re-verified them in the browser.

Biases the model to solve problems with teams of agents

it's a brand new mode