I'm not familiar with this at all. But at first blush, it seems like the Readme is far more interested in being angry with Anthropic than actually telling me what this is or why I care.
I see "Multi Agent Orchestration", but, scrolling through this I still have no idea what I'm looking at.
The readme (and probably most of the project) is likely generated by an LLM - chances are we'll learn more reading the prompts than the readme.
I actually tried this few days back before the Claude Code EULA reinforcement, I went through the same thing.
1. I honestly had a hard time parsing what this is supposed to do or provide over standard opencode setup from the readme. It is rather long-winded and have a lot of bombastic claims but doesnt really explain what it does.
2. Regardless, the claims are pretty enticing. Because I was in experiment mode, and I already had a VM running to try out some other stuff, I gave it a try
3. From what I can tell, its basically a set of configs and plugins to make opencode behave a certain way. Kinda like how lazyvim/astronvim are to neovim.
4. But for all its claims, it had a lot of issues - the setups are rather brittle and was hard to get working out of the box (this is from someone who is pretty comfortable tinkering with vim configs), when I managed to get it working (at least I think its working), its kinda meh? It uses up way more tokens than the default opencode, for worse (or at less consistent) results.
5, FWIW, I dont find the multi/sub-agent workflow to be all that useful for most tasks, or at the very least its still very early IMO, kinda like the function calling phase of chatgpt to really be useful.
6. I was actually able to grok most of Steve Yegge's gastown post from the other day. He made-up a lot of terms that I think made things even more confusing, but I was able to recognize many of the concepts as things that I also had thought of them in a "it would be cool if we can do X/Y/Z" manner. Not with this project.
TBH, at this point im not sure if I'm using it wrong or am I missing something, or this is just how people market their projects in the age of LLM.
edit: what I tried the other day was the code-yeongyu/oh-my-opencode, not this (fork?) project
Re point 5, the simplest argument in favor of sub-agent workflows it that it allows the main agent context to remain free of a large amount of task-specific working context. This lets the main context survive longer before you need compaction. Compaction in CC is a major loss of context IME. Context compaction is generally the point where I reset the conversation as the compacted conversation is practically as bad as a new one but has a bunch of wasted space already.
How I wish we could just see and patch up the raw context before it goes out. If I could hand edit a compaction it would result in better execution going forward and better for my own mental model. It’s such a small feature, but Anthropic would never give it to us.
Part of me says that that could be handled with licenses, though for that to work the code probably no longer qualifies as open source either.
Also, I'd guess, the sort of people who are comfortable with asking an LLM to build the premium features are, uh, morally flexible enough to not care about licenses in the first place.
It's almost always locking some features behind subscription.
Obviously, SSO is the best choice for most deployments. Enterprises (who will probably pay the most) will require SSO.
Open Source is the "free taste". Everyone knows, uses, and likes Grafana. When your company is looking for something, you'll recommend it because you're familiar with it. Your company will want things like SCIM or similar, and pay them for it.
It's harder for products that are trying to sell to smaller companies/individuals, but it still applies.
Genuine question to understand - have you tried this approach to build or break any habit for yourself? What were the learnings from it - what worked and what didn't? And how did you tweak the approach for the next habit?
Short answer: yes, I have--walking. I think the main learnings were (a) have faith in absurdly small steps, repeated, and (b) my anxious brain is always looking for the slightest excuse to skip it. No real tweaks, except keep trying to make the step smaller.
"You are hereby granted a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under Broadcom’s copyrights to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software in source code or binary form for use in connection with Broadcom products."
Feels like it's saying you're only allowed to use it in the future if you use it in relation to some Broadcom product.
I am cautiously optimistic that this means even if thousands of these devices suddenly "light up" in an outage, the infrastructure should be able to handle them, right? Thoughts?
I for one think this is a great marketing opportunity. Even if you have the best gigabit fiber, at five dollars a month, this is a no brainer for a lot of people. If you can have monthly recurring revenue for starlink doing essentially nothing, why not? Also, it is probably easier to upsell to existing customers.
It’s a Claude agent prompt. I don’t recall who originally shared it, so I can’t yet attribute the source, but I’ll track that down shortly and add proper attribution here.
Not yet, but we'll need beta testers. If you're interested and in a large metro area please reach out to ofek [at] nestful [dot] app mentioning said metro.
The main question as always is price. I was also interested in things like Chainguard and Docker secure images until I had a sales call with them and found out the price.
I can’t seem to find the price anywhere on your site… I assume the reason for that is that it’s also nearly impossible for a non-fortune 500 to afford?
Nope - we're early stage so we're really flexible not just on pricing but licensing terms too. We have many customers that are smaller startups, not just typical F500 types.
I see "Multi Agent Orchestration", but, scrolling through this I still have no idea what I'm looking at.
reply