logoalt Hacker News

HEmanZ • today at 2:20 AM • 1 reply • view on HN

I'm excited to have a version of this I don't have to maintain myself anymore! My co-founder was just questioning me today if it was worth the effort to maintain.

I've found that the next two bottlenecks above broad project co-ordination across agents like this are 1) specifying a project in enough detail that you are actually happy with the results 2) predicting the costs in terms of tokens and time.

How are you managing these? I've found without getting a lot better at 1 and 2, parallel project management like this has questionable returns on tokens and time.


Replies

bcherny • today at 2:35 AM

1. Opus 5.5 is a pretty good answer. We iterated a lot on the coordinator, and combined with Opus 5.5 or other modern models, it feels like it strikes the right balance of acting with autonomy while going back to inform you and to validate assumptions.

2. In AB tests and evals, we’ve found that the coordinator has <10% token overhead compared to running sessions directly, and users feel it’s well worth the cost. We’re thinking through ideas for better planning how to pace/use tokens, but don’t have a perfect solution yet. One thing that somewhat works is just asking the model eg. “use around 300k tokens”.

[edit: forgot HN needs newlines for lists]

➕ show 1 reply