logoalt Hacker News

14u2c • yesterday at 11:12 PM • 1 reply • view on HN

You are correct, at least based on my experimentation. This subagent workflow really only delivers meaningful results when working across model families (ex: Opus asking Astra for a review) or when working across conceptual hardware boundaries (cloud offloading to local inference, etc). The planner / overseer model ends up reading all the output of the coder model anyway, at least if you want quality output, so there's not much benefit otherwise.

Replies

CharlieDigital • yesterday at 11:35 PM

    > The planner / overseer model ends up reading all the output of the coder model anyway
I mean, even that's fine because output tokens cost ~5x input tokens. So that's still a win if the agent that does the heavy code reading and writing produces output that may be read again by the lead (not my observation of how agents in Paseo interact and of course, correctable to degrees with shared system prompt).

Here's a snippet of a sample prompt downwards from the lead for a piece of code I'm working on:

    From agent: 3ff73f80-9713-458c-8271-d275f03609c6

    <role>
    You are the Principal Engineer on <snipped ... /> (.NET 11 / Vue MCP server; read CLAUDE.md in your working directory first). ...
    </role>

    <lead_role>
    I am the Director of Engineering. The System Architect and the DMTS reviewed this approach ...
    </lead_role>

    <sniped ... />

    <comms>
    Run all gating commands in the FOREGROUND. End your turn ONLY with the final report: pass/fail per success criterion (a)-(i) with evidence, the branch tip SHA and `git log --oneline origin/main..HEAD`, lines added/deleted, the exact 0factor image digest and version you pinned, every deviation from this brief and why, risks you saw,...
    </comms>
The agent is given explicit "comms" instructions upwards and I find that both agents in this exchange stick to the contract.
➕ show 1 reply