[gbnwl]

How is this any different than what we have already? We've had this ability for ages (6+ months, decades in the AI world), you can literally today easily prompt CC or Codex to use subagents to accomplish tasks and they'll do it well. My entire workflow is one top level orchestrator chat creating tickets to dispatch to subagents to implement, and other subagents to verify. Why is this being sold as a new thing? Have HN users never tried tried asking CC or Codex to use subagents?

[UnfitFootprint]

The top comment on the thread explains this will involve subagent to subagent comms.

To what effect I don’t know… I thought subagents were useful because they were explicitly single purpose and bound to a narrow context

[davedx]

I'd love to read more about how to use this workflow. What kind of top level instructions does this actually work with? Is there an article out there with some concrete examples of how to do this effectively?

[cyanydeez]

in opencode, if you directly referencee a subagent keyword or the name of a defined agent, it'll often spawn the agent.

If you don't mention it directly, it's 50/50 whether any given request will invoke a subagent.

The same with tools, skills, etc. No matter how smart these LLMs appear, they rarely do thinking as you expect.

So basically: learn how the harnesses operate, and know the names of the tools they have.

[tfehring]

I assume this is ~equivalent to ultracode in Claude Code, which can deploy a tree of hundreds of nested subagents and was just released experimentally 5 weeks ago IIRC.

[ai_fry_ur_brain]

Because most people need complexity to be wrapped in a simple UI/UX. Most people just want the one-two button press and be on their way.