7 ms·

Show HN: Mysti – Claude, Codex, and Gemini debate your code, then synthesize

216 points by bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago

Hey HN! I'm Baha, creator of Mysti. The problem: I pay for Claude Pro, ChatGPT Plus, and Gemini but only one could help at a time. On tricky architecture decisions, I wanted a second opinion. The solution: Mysti lets you pick any two AI agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini) to collaborate. They each analyze your request, debate approaches, then synthesize the best solution. Your prompt → Agent 1 analyzes → Agent 2 analyzes → Discussion → Synthesized solution Why this matters: each model has different training and blind spots. Two perspectives catch edge cases one would miss. It's like pair programming with two senior devs who actually discuss before answering. What you get: * Use your existing subscriptions (no new accounts, just your CLI tools) * 16 personas (Architect, Debugger, Security Expert, etc) * Full permission control from read-only to autonomous * Unified context when switching agents Tech: TypeScript, VS Code Extension API, shells out to claude-code/codex-cli/gemini-cli License: BSL 1.1, free for personal and educational use, converts to MIT in 2030 (would love input on this, does it make sense to just go MIT?) GitHub: https://github.com/DeepMyst/Mysti https://github.com/DeepMyst/Mysti Would love feedback on the brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem?

mlrtime 10mo ago
Why make it a vscode extension if the point of these 3 tools is a cli interface? Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. Is VSC required?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  That’s a great idea! I can make it a CLI too
- KronisLV 10mo ago
  > Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. I guess it depends? You can usually count on Claude Code or Codex or Gemini CLI to support the model features the best, but sometimes having a consistent UI across all of them is also nice - be it another CLI tool like OpenCode (that was a bit buggy for me when it came to copying text), or maybe Cline/RooCode/KiloCode inside of VSC, so you don't also have to install a custom editor like Cursor but can use your pre-existing VSC setup. Okay, that was a bit of a run on sentence, but it's nice to be able to work on some context and then to switch between different models inline: "Hey Sonnet, please look at the work of the previous model up until this point and validate its findings about the cause of this bug." I'd also love it if I could hook up some of those models (especially what Cerebras Code offers) with autocomplete so I wouldn't need Copilot either, but most of the plugins that try to do that are pretty buggy or broken (e.g. Continue.dev). KiloCode also added autocomplete, but it doesn't seem to work with BYOK.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Very true, I like the fact that I can now use them with a consistent UI, shared context and ability to brainstorm Will definitely try to add those features in a future release as well
- davidmurdoch 10mo ago
  Huh. I know hundreds that use LLMs in a VSCode based IDE, and 3 that use the CLI.
  - datameta 10mo ago
    I was a proponent initially of CLI when Claude integration with VSCode required a WSL instance, but now that it is integrated directly into VSCode I feel one grouping of tooling hiccups is now ruled out in my workflow. The only (major) nitpick I have is that it wont let you finish typing and cuts you off when asking whether/how to proceed.
tiku 10mo ago
Anyone knows of something similar but for terminal? Update: I've already found a solution based on a comment, and modified it a bit. Inside claude code i've made a new agent that uses the MCP gemini through https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp. this seems to work! Claude code: Now let me launch the Gemini MCP specialist to build the backend monitoring server: gemini-mcp-specialist(Build monitoring backend server) ⎿ Running PreToolUse hook…
- rane 10mo ago
  My similar workflow within Claude Code when it gets stuck is to have it consult Gemini. Works either through Gemini CLI or the API. Surprisingly powerful pattern because I've just found that Gemini is still ahead of Opus in architectural reasoning and figuring out difficult bugs. https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    This is one of the reasons I actually built it but wanted to make it more generalized to work with any agent and on the same context without switching
  - tiku 10mo ago
    I like this solution that you can ask Gemini
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      Any other ideas that you think would make it more powerful?
      - tiku 10mo ago
        Perhaps that you can tell it to "use gemini for task x, claude for task y" as sub-agents.
Tarrosion 10mo ago
> Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem? I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things. I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a nice interface. If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be excited to try it out when back at work.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Would love to hear your feedback! Please let me know if I can make it any better or if there is anything that would make it very useful
altmanaltman 10mo ago
> Would love feedback on the brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem? If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  True and hearing feedback is always helpful and helps validate if it is a common problem or not
Alifatisk 10mo ago
This reminds me a lot of eye2.ai, but outside of coding
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I will check it out indeed. What is common between the two?
  - Alifatisk 10mo ago
    I guess both consult multiple llms and draw conclusion from them to cover blindspots
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      I think the main difference is that Mysti consults with agents rather than the underlying LLM and in the future potentially the agents can switch LLMs as well
d4rkp4ttern 10mo ago
A workflow I find useful is to have multiple CLI agents running in different Tmux panes and have one consult/delegate to another using my Tmux-CLI [1] tool + skill. Advantage of this is that the agents’ work is fully visible and I can intervene as needed. [1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-ov-file#tmux-cli-terminal-automation https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I will look it up indeed
- sharifabdel 10mo ago
  What prompted you to build this?
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    I used to get stuck sometimes with Claude and needing a different agent to take a look and the switch back and forth between those agents is a headache and also you won’t be able to port all the context so thought this might help solve real blockers for many devs on larger projects
  - d4rkp4ttern 10mo ago
    I have both Codex and Claude subs so I wanted one to be able to consult the other. Also it’s useful when you have a cli script that an agent is iterating on, so it can test it. Another use case is for a CLI agent to run a debugger like PDB in another pane, though I haven’t used it much.
- petesergeant 10mo ago
  I've had good success with a similar workflow, most recently using it to help me build out a captive-wifi debugger[0]. In short, it worked _pretty_ well, but it was quite time intensive. That said, I think removing the human from the loop would have been insanity on this: lots of situations where there were some very poor ideas suggested that the other LLMs went along with, and others where one LLM was the sole voice of reason against the other two. I think my only real take-away from all of it was that Claude is probably the best at prototyping code, where Codex make a very strong (but pedantic) code-reviewer. Gemini was all over the place, sometimes inspired, sometimes idiotic. 0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main
danr4 10mo ago
licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is changing is not a smart decision.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thinking of switching to MIT, what do you think? Is there any other license you would recommend ?
  - RobotToaster 10mo ago
    AGPL, it requires anyone who creates a derivative to publish the code of said derivative.
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      Good idea! Very good point
- rynn 10mo ago
  > licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is changing is not a smart decision This turned me off as well. Especially with no published pricing and a link to a site that is not about this product. At minimum, publish pricing.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    It is free and open source. Will make it MIT
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      Done and converted to MIT
      - rynn 10mo ago
        Awesome, in that case, I'll check it out!
prashantsengar 10mo ago
This is very useful! I frequently copy the response of one model and ask another to review it and I have seen really good results with that approach. Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it allows to use multiple models.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I’m planning to add Cursor and Cline in the next major release, will try to get in out in Jan
  - reachableceo 10mo ago
    Please also add qwen cli support
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      Will do. I was thinking of also making the LLMs configurable across the agents. I saw a post from the founder of openrouter that you can use DeepSeek with Claude code and was thinking of making it possible to use more LLMs across agents
dunkmaster 10mo ago
Any benchmarks? For example vs a single model?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  It would be great if the community can run some benchmarks and post it on the repo, planning to do that sometime in Jan
p1esk 10mo ago
Why limit to 2 agents? I typically use all 3.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Planning to make it work without that limit, did that to avoid complexity but contributions are welcome I think once I add cursor and cline then will also try to make it work with any number of agents
adiga1005 10mo ago
I have been using it for some time and it getting better and better with time in many cases it’s giving better output than other tools the comparison is great feature too keep up the good work
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thank you so much! Let me know if you face any issues and happy to address it
DenisM 10mo ago
Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future. All agents have blind spots, collaboration is how they are offset. You may want to study [1] - this is the latest thinking on agent collaboration from Google. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-biggest-ai-agent-course-ever-activity-7395301281117929472-vRRl https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-...
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thank you so much for sharing Denis! I definitely believe in the that as the world start switching from single agent to agentic teams where each agent does have specific capabilities. do you know of any benchmarks that covers collaborative agents ?
  - DenisM 10mo ago
    You’re welcome. I don’t know if benchmarks, sorry.
- NitpickLawyer 10mo ago
  > Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future Autogen from ms was an early attempt at this, and it was fun to play with it, but too early (the models themselves kinda crapped out after a few convos). This would work much better today with how long agents can stay on track. There was also a finding earlier this year, I believe from the swe-bench guys (or hf?), where they saw better scores with alternating between gpt5/sonnet4 after each call during an execution flow. The scores of alternating between them were higher than any of them individually. Found that interesting at the time.
  - paulirish 10mo ago
    The latter, if any else are curious: https://www.swebench.com/post-250820-mini-roulette.html https://www.swebench.com/post-250820-mini-roulette.html
sorokod 10mo ago
Have you tried executing multiple agents on a single model with modified prompts and have them try to reach consensus? That may solve the original problem of paying for three different models.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I think you will still pay for 3 times the tokens for a single model rather than 3 but will consolidate payment. I was thinking to make the model choice more dynamic per agent such that you can use any model with any agent and have one single payment for all so you won’t repeat and pay for 3 or more different tools. Is that in line with what you are saying ?
  - sorokod 10mo ago
    Neither the original issue (having three models) nor this one (un consolidated payments) have anything to do with the end result / quality of the output. Can you comment on that?
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      Executing multiple agents on the same model also works. I find it helpful to even change the persona of the same agent “the prompt” or the model the agent is using. These variations always help but I found having multiple different agents with different LLMs in the backend works better
      - markab21 10mo ago
        I love where you're going with this. In my experience it's not about a different persona, it's about constantly considering context that triggers, different activations enhance a different outcome. You can achieve the same thing, of course by switching to an agent with a separate persona, but you can also get it simply by injecting new context, or forcing the agent to consider something new. I feel like this concept gets cargo-culted a little bit. I personally have moved to a pattern where i use mastra-agents in my project to achieve this. I've slowly shifted the bulk of the code research and web research to my internal tools (built with small typescript agents).. I can now really easily bounce between different tools such as claude, codex, opencode and my coding tools are spending more time orchestrating work than doing the work themselves.
RobotToaster 10mo ago
That sounds like it could get expensive?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Not if you optimize the tokens used. This is what DeepMyst actually do, one of the things we offer is token optimization where we can reduce up to 80% of the context so even if you use twice the optimized context you will end up with 60% less tokens. Note that this functionality is not yet integrated with Mysti but we are planning to add it in the near future and happy to accelerate. I think token optimization will help with larger projects, longer context and avoiding compact.
MrDunham 10mo ago
Website link on Github points to https://deepmyst.com/ https://deepmyst.com/ But actually hosted on https://www.deepmyst.com/ https://www.deepmyst.com/ with no forwarding from the Apex domain to www so it looks like the website is down. Otherwise excited to deep dive into this as this is a variant of how we do development and seems to work great when the AI fights each other.
- csomar 10mo ago
  It's a good thing (/s) that Chrome now hides that fact. So it looks like the same domain is down on one tab and working on the other.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- blks 10mo ago
  An agent didn’t do very good job
spaceman_2020 10mo ago
I’ve never seen a profession change so fast as coding right now
- CamperBob2 10mo ago
  Have to keep in mind that what is happening now is basically what was promised decades ago. Never mind 4GL, 5GL, expert systems, and other efforts that went nowhere... even COBOL was created with the intention of making programming look more like natural language. Often, revolutions take longer to happen than we think they will, and then they happen faster than we think they will. And when the tipping point is finally reached, we find more people pushing back than we thought there would be.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human language, the same way as low level languages replaced by high level languages. It is the natural evolution of development. On the other hand agentic teams will take over solo agents.
    - Terretta 10mo ago
      > I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human languageI believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human language Ask any human client buying dev work from a web agency how "natural language" spec works out for them. It's not clear to me at all that "natural language" alone is ideal -- unless you also have near real time iteration of builds. If you do, then the build is a concrete manifestation of the spec, and the natural language can say "but that's not what I meant". This allows messy natural language to vector towards the solution, "I'll know it when I see it" style. So, natural language shaping iteratively convergent builds.
    - blks 10mo ago
      Is that your actual believe? That non-formal, natural human language explaining the task will replace formal programming?
cheema33 10mo ago
I created a simple skill in Claude Code CLI that collaborates with Codex CLI. It is just a prompt saved in the skill format. It uses subagents as well. Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?
- achille 10mo ago
  Could you share your skill and workflow? does claude launch codex in a tmux session?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  The skill would allow Claude Code CLI to call Codex CLI but then Claude Code CLI will need to pass context to Codex which would require writing the context "which causes latency" and this process of writing the context will provide limited context to Codex and also eat up from the main context window. Mysti shares the context which is very different from passing context as a parameter.
- Johnny_Bonk 10mo ago
  could you share the skill please, id lke to try it, maybe enhance it
dwa3592 10mo ago
>Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex (OpenAI), and Gemini (Google) have different training, different strengths, and different blind spots. Do they? There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I usually switch agents when one agent get stuck and I faced several situations where one agent solved a problem that the other agent was stuck on
- monkeydust 10mo ago
  [2510.22954] Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) https://share.google/1GHdUvhz2uhF4PVFU https://share.google/1GHdUvhz2uhF4PVFU
- blks 10mo ago
  It’s perceived, and perception varies across developers and time. These tools are not guaranteed to deliver anything.
danielfalbo 10mo ago
How do we measure this is any better than just using 1 good model?
- bandrami 10mo ago
  One day someone will actually build something with an LLM and do a write-up of it, but until then we'll just keep reading about tooling.
- Closi 10mo ago
  Anecdotal experience, but when bugfixing I personally find if a model introduces a bug, it has a hard time spotting and fixing it, but when you give the code to another model it can instantly spot it (even if it's a weaker model overall). So I can well imagine that this sort of approach could work very well, although agree with your sentiment that measurement would be good.
taf2 10mo ago
For me when it’s front end I usually work with Claude and have codex review. Otherwise I just work with codex… Claude also if I’m being lazy and want a thing quickly
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Gemini is also great at frontends nowadays. I think every agent does have strengths and capabilities
csar 10mo ago
Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models may help though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you’re increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2 LLM’s quirks). But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer. If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  The way it works is that each agent think independently, discuss the solution and each agent opinion then one will synthesize a solution.
  - csar 10mo ago
    I understand. My point is that the personas are generally not a good idea and that there are much simpler and more predictable ways of getting better results.
    - jacob019 10mo ago
      I get where you're coming from, especially since role playing was so vital in early models in a way that is no longer necessary, or even harmful; however, when designing a complex system of interactions, there's really no way around it. And as humans we do this constantly, putting on a different hat for different jobs. When I'm wearing my developer hat, I have to reason about the role of each component in a system, and when I use an agent to serve in that role, by curating it's context and designating rules for how I want it to behave, I'm assigning it a persona. What's more, I may prime the context user and assistant messages, as examples of how I want it to respond. That context becomes the agent's personality--it's persona.
      - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
NicoJuicy 10mo ago
Sounds very similar to LLM council https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thanks for sharing, I will check it out
deepsummer 10mo ago
Great idea. Whether brainstorm mode is actually useful is hard to say without trying it out, but it sounds like an interesting approach. Maybe it would be a good idea to try running a SWE benchmark with it. Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write more code than tinker with settings or personas.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Fair enough on personas, I like to activate skills more than personas, for example I activate the auto commit skill to ensure the agent would automatically commit after finishing a feature
nickphx 10mo ago
how would using multiple services that are incapable of performing the work correctly result in better work?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  This follows a concept called wisdom of the crowd
thomas_witt 10mo ago
Codex CLI can run as MCP server ootb which you can call directly from Claude code. Together with a prompt to ask codex for a second opinion, that works very well for me, especially in code reviews.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  But then codex won't have the full context of your existing work and might need to go through its own exploratory path
matt3210 10mo ago
For only 3x the cost
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Not if you optimize the context
tacone 10mo ago
Interesting, I was trying to implement this using AGENTS.md and the runSubagent tool in vscode. Vscode has not yet the capability to invoke different models as subagent so I plan to fallback to instructing copilot to use copilot-cli and gemini-cli. (I am quite angry about copilot CLI offering only full blown models and not the -mini versions though)
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I'm planning to add copilot, cursor and cline but feel free to contribute to the repo if you would like to do that and will look for ways to use the mini versions of the models as well when I integrate copilot CLI
  - tacone 10mo ago
    Problem is, Copilot CLI doesn't really supports free or mini models. You have very tight choice of models. This looks like product decision. I understand why they won't allow you to use the free models on CLI, but not being able to use the (pay for) mini models is beyond me.
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      copilot support was just added in version 0.2.2
ekropotin 10mo ago
How it’s different from PAL MCP (ex ZEN MCP)?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  With an MCP the agent needs to write the context to be passed to the MCP then the MCP would run the underlying CLI with that context. Mysti works differently by sharing context directly with the CLIs.
bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
UPDATE: License is now MIT! Super excited to see your contributions and feedback!
tomsmithtld 10mo ago
the "full" mode where agents critique each other seems more interesting than quick synthesis. curious whether you've seen cases where the debate produces something neither model would've suggested alone?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I was working on a project where I tried Claude code to optimize processing of taichi Kernel and it kept using structure that didn’t work with taichi lang limitations so it kept going on a loop, did the same with codex and faced the same issue then tried to have both agents discuss it and it worked! It saved me several hours
justatdotin 10mo ago
multi-agent collaboration on planning is definitely really valuable. I lean in to gemini's long context and have it set up as a long-term observer who I consult about overall direction, project philosophy, patterns in fail and success, and prioritisation. This gives a different perspective from which to assess other agents' plans.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Very true, Claude also tend to struggle around the context window limit and after compact
nextaccountic 10mo ago
> License: BSL 1.1, free for personal and educational use, converts to MIT in 2030 (would love input on this, does it make sense to just go MIT?) I LOLd at that. Things in AI space become obsolete much faster. I'd say just go with GPL or AGPL if you don't want proprietary software to be built on top of your code
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Converted it to MIT so it is MIT now
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nextaccountic 10mo ago
    That's quite nice of you!
    - bahaAbunojaim 9mo ago
      Thanks!
danpalmer 10mo ago
> Together they debate, challenge each other, and synthesize the best solution Do they? How much better are multiple agents on your evals, and what sort of evals are you running? I've also research that suggests that more agents degrades the output after a point.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Haven’t done Evals yet but measured on few real world situations where projects got stuck and the brainstorm mode solved it. Definitely running evals is something worth doing and contributions are welcomed I think what really degrades the output is the context length vs context window limits, check out NoLima
  - danpalmer 10mo ago
    https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2512.08296 https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2512.08296 > coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed ~45% This is going to be the big thing to overcome, and without actually measuring it all we're doing is AI astrology.
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
      This is why context optimization is going to be critical and thank you so much for sharing this paper as this also validates what we are trying to do. So if we managed to keep the baseline below 40% through context optimization then coordination might actually work very well and helps at scaling agentic systems. I agree on measuring and it is planned especially once we integrate the context optimization. I think the value of context optimization will go beyond just avoiding compacting and reducing cost to providing more reliable agents.
scrame 10mo ago
> Mysti — Built by DeepMyst Inc links to: https://deepmyst.com/ https://deepmyst.com/ Site 404's. > Made with Mysti Ringing endorsement.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Link fixed
tombert 10mo ago
I so want to like these vibe coding agents, and sometimes I do, but it really does kind of suck the joy out of things. What I was hoping would be that I could effectively farm out work to my metaphorical AI intern while I get to focus on fun and/or interesting work. Sometimes that is what happens and it makes me very happy when it does. A lot of the time, however, it generates code that is wrong, or incomplete (while claiming it is complete), and so I end up having to babysit the code, either by further prompting or just editing the code. And then it makes a lot of software engineering become "type prompt, sit and wait a minute, look at the code, repeat", which means I'm decidedly not focusing the fun part of the project and instead I'm just larping as a manager who backseat codes. A friend of mine said that he likes to do this backwards: he writes a lot of the code himself and then he uses Claude Code to debug and automate writing tedious stuff like unit tests, and I think that might make it a little less mind numbing. Also, very tangential, and maybe my prompting game isn't completely on point here, but Codex seems decidedly bad at concurrent code [1]. I was working on some lock-free data store stuff, and Codex really wanted to add a bunch of lock files that were wholly unnecessary. Oh, and it kept trying to add mutexes into Rust, no matter how many times I tell it I don't want locks and it should use one-shot channels instead. To be fair, when I went and fixed the functions myself in a few spots and then told it to use that as an example, it did get a little better. [1] I think this particular case is because it's trained on example code from Github and most code involving concurrency uses locks (incorrectly or at least sub-optimally). I guess this particular problem may be more of the fault of American universities teaching concurrent programming incorrectly at the undergrad level.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I find it useful to let one agent come up with a plan after a review and another agent implementing the plan. For example, Gemini reviewing the code, codex writing a plan and then Claude code implementing it
  - mycall 10mo ago
    What about the reverse, after Claude code implements it, let Gemini/Codex do a code review for bugs and architecture revisions? I found it is important to prompt to only make absolutely minimal changes to the working code, or unwanted code clobbering will happen.
GajendraSahu23 10mo ago
This looks great! As someone just starting their coding journey, would using multiple agents (Claude/Gemini) help in learning best practices, or is it better suited for experienced developers for refactoring?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thanks! You would need to instruct the agents to follow best practices and explain it while developing. Sometimes they get messy but if you use the right instructions/persona/skills then you will get very good results A final review from experienced developers is always recommended
omarkoudsi 10mo ago
I feel this is quite needed. I am beginner vibe coder and have already felt the need for this. I constantly shift back and forth.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Thank you so much and would love to hear your feedback anytime
bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
UPDATE: Mysti 0.2.2 Release Hey HN! Quick update on Mysti based on your feedback: 1- Mysti now supports GitHub Copilot CLI as a fourth provider. So you can now do Claude Code + Copilot (running GPT-5) in Brainstorm mode, or any combination of the 4 providers. Mix and match based on what catches different issues. 2- Mysti is now MIT Licensed. Switched from BSL 1.1 to MIT. 3- Better Auth UX When a CLI isn't authenticated, you now get a friendly error with one-click "Open Terminal & Authenticate" instead of cryptic CLI errors.
kundi 9mo ago
It sounds like an interesting experiment that you're doing. Are there any plans to support cli mode? Many developer are reluctant of VS code and other slow IDEs
- bahaAbunojaim 9mo ago
  We are actively working on it, hopefully will get something out in Jan with additional providers like cursor added
lostmsu 9mo ago
Huh? I just put something along the lines of: "use Gemini (`gemini <query>`) and Claude (`claude -p <query>`) for design review before trying to implement anything and for code review before reporting task completion" in a user-wide AGENTS.md

216 points by bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago

mlrtime 10mo ago

Why make it a vscode extension if the point of these 3 tools is a cli interface? Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. Is VSC required?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
That’s a great idea! I can make it a CLI too
KronisLV 10mo ago
> Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. I guess it depends? You can usually count on Claude Code or Codex or Gemini CLI to support the model features the best, but sometimes having a consistent UI across all of them is also nice - be it another CLI tool like OpenCode (that was a bit buggy for me when it came to copying text), or maybe Cline/RooCode/KiloCode inside of VSC, so you don't also have to install a custom editor like Cursor but can use your pre-existing VSC setup. Okay, that was a bit of a run on sentence, but it's nice to be able to work on some context and then to switch between different models inline: "Hey Sonnet, please look at the work of the previous model up until this point and validate its findings about the cause of this bug." I'd also love it if I could hook up some of those models (especially what Cerebras Code offers) with autocomplete so I wouldn't need Copilot either, but most of the plugins that try to do that are pretty buggy or broken (e.g. Continue.dev). KiloCode also added autocomplete, but it doesn't seem to work with BYOK.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  Very true, I like the fact that I can now use them with a consistent UI, shared context and ability to brainstorm Will definitely try to add those features in a future release as well
davidmurdoch 10mo ago
Huh. I know hundreds that use LLMs in a VSCode based IDE, and 3 that use the CLI.
- datameta 10mo ago
  I was a proponent initially of CLI when Claude integration with VSCode required a WSL instance, but now that it is integrated directly into VSCode I feel one grouping of tooling hiccups is now ruled out in my workflow. The only (major) nitpick I have is that it wont let you finish typing and cuts you off when asking whether/how to proceed.

tiku 10mo ago

Anyone knows of something similar but for terminal? Update: I've already found a solution based on a comment, and modified it a bit. Inside claude code i've made a new agent that uses the MCP gemini through https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp. this seems to work! Claude code: Now let me launch the Gemini MCP specialist to build the backend monitoring server: gemini-mcp-specialist(Build monitoring backend server) ⎿ Running PreToolUse hook…

rane 10mo ago
My similar workflow within Claude Code when it gets stuck is to have it consult Gemini. Works either through Gemini CLI or the API. Surprisingly powerful pattern because I've just found that Gemini is still ahead of Opus in architectural reasoning and figuring out difficult bugs. https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  This is one of the reasons I actually built it but wanted to make it more generalized to work with any agent and on the same context without switching
- tiku 10mo ago
  I like this solution that you can ask Gemini
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Any other ideas that you think would make it more powerful?
    - tiku 10mo ago
      Perhaps that you can tell it to "use gemini for task x, claude for task y" as sub-agents.

Tarrosion 10mo ago

> Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem? I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things. I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a nice interface. If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be excited to try it out when back at work.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Would love to hear your feedback! Please let me know if I can make it any better or if there is anything that would make it very useful

altmanaltman 10mo ago

> Would love feedback on the brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem? If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
True and hearing feedback is always helpful and helps validate if it is a common problem or not

Alifatisk 10mo ago

This reminds me a lot of eye2.ai, but outside of coding

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I will check it out indeed. What is common between the two?
- Alifatisk 10mo ago
  I guess both consult multiple llms and draw conclusion from them to cover blindspots
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    I think the main difference is that Mysti consults with agents rather than the underlying LLM and in the future potentially the agents can switch LLMs as well

d4rkp4ttern 10mo ago

A workflow I find useful is to have multiple CLI agents running in different Tmux panes and have one consult/delegate to another using my Tmux-CLI [1] tool + skill. Advantage of this is that the agents’ work is fully visible and I can intervene as needed. [1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-ov-file#tmux-cli-terminal-automation https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I will look it up indeed
sharifabdel 10mo ago
What prompted you to build this?
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I used to get stuck sometimes with Claude and needing a different agent to take a look and the switch back and forth between those agents is a headache and also you won’t be able to port all the context so thought this might help solve real blockers for many devs on larger projects
- d4rkp4ttern 10mo ago
  I have both Codex and Claude subs so I wanted one to be able to consult the other. Also it’s useful when you have a cli script that an agent is iterating on, so it can test it. Another use case is for a CLI agent to run a debugger like PDB in another pane, though I haven’t used it much.
petesergeant 10mo ago
I've had good success with a similar workflow, most recently using it to help me build out a captive-wifi debugger[0]. In short, it worked _pretty_ well, but it was quite time intensive. That said, I think removing the human from the loop would have been insanity on this: lots of situations where there were some very poor ideas suggested that the other LLMs went along with, and others where one LLM was the sole voice of reason against the other two. I think my only real take-away from all of it was that Claude is probably the best at prototyping code, where Codex make a very strong (but pedantic) code-reviewer. Gemini was all over the place, sometimes inspired, sometimes idiotic. 0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main

danr4 10mo ago

licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is changing is not a smart decision.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thinking of switching to MIT, what do you think? Is there any other license you would recommend ?
- RobotToaster 10mo ago
  AGPL, it requires anyone who creates a derivative to publish the code of said derivative.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Good idea! Very good point
rynn 10mo ago
> licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is changing is not a smart decision This turned me off as well. Especially with no published pricing and a link to a site that is not about this product. At minimum, publish pricing.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  It is free and open source. Will make it MIT
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Done and converted to MIT
    - rynn 10mo ago
      Awesome, in that case, I'll check it out!

prashantsengar 10mo ago

This is very useful! I frequently copy the response of one model and ask another to review it and I have seen really good results with that approach. Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it allows to use multiple models.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I’m planning to add Cursor and Cline in the next major release, will try to get in out in Jan
- reachableceo 10mo ago
  Please also add qwen cli support
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Will do. I was thinking of also making the LLMs configurable across the agents. I saw a post from the founder of openrouter that you can use DeepSeek with Claude code and was thinking of making it possible to use more LLMs across agents

dunkmaster 10mo ago

Any benchmarks? For example vs a single model?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
It would be great if the community can run some benchmarks and post it on the repo, planning to do that sometime in Jan

p1esk 10mo ago

Why limit to 2 agents? I typically use all 3.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Planning to make it work without that limit, did that to avoid complexity but contributions are welcome I think once I add cursor and cline then will also try to make it work with any number of agents

adiga1005 10mo ago

I have been using it for some time and it getting better and better with time in many cases it’s giving better output than other tools the comparison is great feature too keep up the good work

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thank you so much! Let me know if you face any issues and happy to address it

DenisM 10mo ago

Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future. All agents have blind spots, collaboration is how they are offset. You may want to study [1] - this is the latest thinking on agent collaboration from Google. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-biggest-ai-agent-course-ever-activity-7395301281117929472-vRRl https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-...

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thank you so much for sharing Denis! I definitely believe in the that as the world start switching from single agent to agentic teams where each agent does have specific capabilities. do you know of any benchmarks that covers collaborative agents ?
- DenisM 10mo ago
  You’re welcome. I don’t know if benchmarks, sorry.
NitpickLawyer 10mo ago
> Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future Autogen from ms was an early attempt at this, and it was fun to play with it, but too early (the models themselves kinda crapped out after a few convos). This would work much better today with how long agents can stay on track. There was also a finding earlier this year, I believe from the swe-bench guys (or hf?), where they saw better scores with alternating between gpt5/sonnet4 after each call during an execution flow. The scores of alternating between them were higher than any of them individually. Found that interesting at the time.
- paulirish 10mo ago
  The latter, if any else are curious: https://www.swebench.com/post-250820-mini-roulette.html https://www.swebench.com/post-250820-mini-roulette.html

sorokod 10mo ago

Have you tried executing multiple agents on a single model with modified prompts and have them try to reach consensus? That may solve the original problem of paying for three different models.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I think you will still pay for 3 times the tokens for a single model rather than 3 but will consolidate payment. I was thinking to make the model choice more dynamic per agent such that you can use any model with any agent and have one single payment for all so you won’t repeat and pay for 3 or more different tools. Is that in line with what you are saying ?
- sorokod 10mo ago
  Neither the original issue (having three models) nor this one (un consolidated payments) have anything to do with the end result / quality of the output. Can you comment on that?
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    Executing multiple agents on the same model also works. I find it helpful to even change the persona of the same agent “the prompt” or the model the agent is using. These variations always help but I found having multiple different agents with different LLMs in the backend works better
    - markab21 10mo ago
      I love where you're going with this. In my experience it's not about a different persona, it's about constantly considering context that triggers, different activations enhance a different outcome. You can achieve the same thing, of course by switching to an agent with a separate persona, but you can also get it simply by injecting new context, or forcing the agent to consider something new. I feel like this concept gets cargo-culted a little bit. I personally have moved to a pattern where i use mastra-agents in my project to achieve this. I've slowly shifted the bulk of the code research and web research to my internal tools (built with small typescript agents).. I can now really easily bounce between different tools such as claude, codex, opencode and my coding tools are spending more time orchestrating work than doing the work themselves.

RobotToaster 10mo ago

That sounds like it could get expensive?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Not if you optimize the tokens used. This is what DeepMyst actually do, one of the things we offer is token optimization where we can reduce up to 80% of the context so even if you use twice the optimized context you will end up with 60% less tokens. Note that this functionality is not yet integrated with Mysti but we are planning to add it in the near future and happy to accelerate. I think token optimization will help with larger projects, longer context and avoiding compact.

MrDunham 10mo ago

Website link on Github points to https://deepmyst.com/ https://deepmyst.com/ But actually hosted on https://www.deepmyst.com/ https://www.deepmyst.com/ with no forwarding from the Apex domain to www so it looks like the website is down. Otherwise excited to deep dive into this as this is a variant of how we do development and seems to work great when the AI fights each other.

csomar 10mo ago
It's a good thing (/s) that Chrome now hides that fact. So it looks like the same domain is down on one tab and working on the other.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
blks 10mo ago
An agent didn’t do very good job

spaceman_2020 10mo ago

I’ve never seen a profession change so fast as coding right now

CamperBob2 10mo ago
Have to keep in mind that what is happening now is basically what was promised decades ago. Never mind 4GL, 5GL, expert systems, and other efforts that went nowhere... even COBOL was created with the intention of making programming look more like natural language. Often, revolutions take longer to happen than we think they will, and then they happen faster than we think they will. And when the tipping point is finally reached, we find more people pushing back than we thought there would be.
- bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
  I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human language, the same way as low level languages replaced by high level languages. It is the natural evolution of development. On the other hand agentic teams will take over solo agents.
  - Terretta 10mo ago
    > I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human languageI believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human language Ask any human client buying dev work from a web agency how "natural language" spec works out for them. It's not clear to me at all that "natural language" alone is ideal -- unless you also have near real time iteration of builds. If you do, then the build is a concrete manifestation of the spec, and the natural language can say "but that's not what I meant". This allows messy natural language to vector towards the solution, "I'll know it when I see it" style. So, natural language shaping iteratively convergent builds.
  - blks 10mo ago
    Is that your actual believe? That non-formal, natural human language explaining the task will replace formal programming?

cheema33 10mo ago

I created a simple skill in Claude Code CLI that collaborates with Codex CLI. It is just a prompt saved in the skill format. It uses subagents as well. Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?

achille 10mo ago
Could you share your skill and workflow? does claude launch codex in a tmux session?
bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
The skill would allow Claude Code CLI to call Codex CLI but then Claude Code CLI will need to pass context to Codex which would require writing the context "which causes latency" and this process of writing the context will provide limited context to Codex and also eat up from the main context window. Mysti shares the context which is very different from passing context as a parameter.
Johnny_Bonk 10mo ago
could you share the skill please, id lke to try it, maybe enhance it

dwa3592 10mo ago

>Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex (OpenAI), and Gemini (Google) have different training, different strengths, and different blind spots. Do they? There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I usually switch agents when one agent get stuck and I faced several situations where one agent solved a problem that the other agent was stuck on
monkeydust 10mo ago
[2510.22954] Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) https://share.google/1GHdUvhz2uhF4PVFU https://share.google/1GHdUvhz2uhF4PVFU
blks 10mo ago
It’s perceived, and perception varies across developers and time. These tools are not guaranteed to deliver anything.

danielfalbo 10mo ago

How do we measure this is any better than just using 1 good model?

bandrami 10mo ago
One day someone will actually build something with an LLM and do a write-up of it, but until then we'll just keep reading about tooling.
Closi 10mo ago
Anecdotal experience, but when bugfixing I personally find if a model introduces a bug, it has a hard time spotting and fixing it, but when you give the code to another model it can instantly spot it (even if it's a weaker model overall). So I can well imagine that this sort of approach could work very well, although agree with your sentiment that measurement would be good.

taf2 10mo ago

For me when it’s front end I usually work with Claude and have codex review. Otherwise I just work with codex… Claude also if I’m being lazy and want a thing quickly

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Gemini is also great at frontends nowadays. I think every agent does have strengths and capabilities

csar 10mo ago

Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models may help though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you’re increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2 LLM’s quirks). But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer. If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
The way it works is that each agent think independently, discuss the solution and each agent opinion then one will synthesize a solution.
- csar 10mo ago
  I understand. My point is that the personas are generally not a good idea and that there are much simpler and more predictable ways of getting better results.
  - jacob019 10mo ago
    I get where you're coming from, especially since role playing was so vital in early models in a way that is no longer necessary, or even harmful; however, when designing a complex system of interactions, there's really no way around it. And as humans we do this constantly, putting on a different hat for different jobs. When I'm wearing my developer hat, I have to reason about the role of each component in a system, and when I use an agent to serve in that role, by curating it's context and designating rules for how I want it to behave, I'm assigning it a persona. What's more, I may prime the context user and assistant messages, as examples of how I want it to respond. That context becomes the agent's personality--it's persona.
    - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago

NicoJuicy 10mo ago

Sounds very similar to LLM council https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thanks for sharing, I will check it out

deepsummer 10mo ago

Great idea. Whether brainstorm mode is actually useful is hard to say without trying it out, but it sounds like an interesting approach. Maybe it would be a good idea to try running a SWE benchmark with it. Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write more code than tinker with settings or personas.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Fair enough on personas, I like to activate skills more than personas, for example I activate the auto commit skill to ensure the agent would automatically commit after finishing a feature

nickphx 10mo ago

how would using multiple services that are incapable of performing the work correctly result in better work?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
This follows a concept called wisdom of the crowd

thomas_witt 10mo ago

Codex CLI can run as MCP server ootb which you can call directly from Claude code. Together with a prompt to ask codex for a second opinion, that works very well for me, especially in code reviews.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
But then codex won't have the full context of your existing work and might need to go through its own exploratory path

matt3210 10mo ago

For only 3x the cost

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Not if you optimize the context

tacone 10mo ago

Interesting, I was trying to implement this using AGENTS.md and the runSubagent tool in vscode. Vscode has not yet the capability to invoke different models as subagent so I plan to fallback to instructing copilot to use copilot-cli and gemini-cli. (I am quite angry about copilot CLI offering only full blown models and not the -mini versions though)

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I'm planning to add copilot, cursor and cline but feel free to contribute to the repo if you would like to do that and will look for ways to use the mini versions of the models as well when I integrate copilot CLI
- tacone 10mo ago
  Problem is, Copilot CLI doesn't really supports free or mini models. You have very tight choice of models. This looks like product decision. I understand why they won't allow you to use the free models on CLI, but not being able to use the (pay for) mini models is beyond me.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    copilot support was just added in version 0.2.2

ekropotin 10mo ago

How it’s different from PAL MCP (ex ZEN MCP)?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
With an MCP the agent needs to write the context to be passed to the MCP then the MCP would run the underlying CLI with that context. Mysti works differently by sharing context directly with the CLIs.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago

UPDATE: License is now MIT! Super excited to see your contributions and feedback!

tomsmithtld 10mo ago

the "full" mode where agents critique each other seems more interesting than quick synthesis. curious whether you've seen cases where the debate produces something neither model would've suggested alone?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I was working on a project where I tried Claude code to optimize processing of taichi Kernel and it kept using structure that didn’t work with taichi lang limitations so it kept going on a loop, did the same with codex and faced the same issue then tried to have both agents discuss it and it worked! It saved me several hours

justatdotin 10mo ago

multi-agent collaboration on planning is definitely really valuable. I lean in to gemini's long context and have it set up as a long-term observer who I consult about overall direction, project philosophy, patterns in fail and success, and prioritisation. This gives a different perspective from which to assess other agents' plans.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Very true, Claude also tend to struggle around the context window limit and after compact

nextaccountic 10mo ago

> License: BSL 1.1, free for personal and educational use, converts to MIT in 2030 (would love input on this, does it make sense to just go MIT?) I LOLd at that. Things in AI space become obsolete much faster. I'd say just go with GPL or AGPL if you don't want proprietary software to be built on top of your code

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Converted it to MIT so it is MIT now
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- nextaccountic 10mo ago
  That's quite nice of you!
  - bahaAbunojaim 9mo ago
    Thanks!

danpalmer 10mo ago

> Together they debate, challenge each other, and synthesize the best solution Do they? How much better are multiple agents on your evals, and what sort of evals are you running? I've also research that suggests that more agents degrades the output after a point.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Haven’t done Evals yet but measured on few real world situations where projects got stuck and the brainstorm mode solved it. Definitely running evals is something worth doing and contributions are welcomed I think what really degrades the output is the context length vs context window limits, check out NoLima
- danpalmer 10mo ago
  https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2512.08296 https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2512.08296 > coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed ~45% This is going to be the big thing to overcome, and without actually measuring it all we're doing is AI astrology.
  - bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
    This is why context optimization is going to be critical and thank you so much for sharing this paper as this also validates what we are trying to do. So if we managed to keep the baseline below 40% through context optimization then coordination might actually work very well and helps at scaling agentic systems. I agree on measuring and it is planned especially once we integrate the context optimization. I think the value of context optimization will go beyond just avoiding compacting and reducing cost to providing more reliable agents.

scrame 10mo ago

> Mysti — Built by DeepMyst Inc links to: https://deepmyst.com/ https://deepmyst.com/ Site 404's. > Made with Mysti Ringing endorsement.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Link fixed

tombert 10mo ago

I so want to like these vibe coding agents, and sometimes I do, but it really does kind of suck the joy out of things. What I was hoping would be that I could effectively farm out work to my metaphorical AI intern while I get to focus on fun and/or interesting work. Sometimes that is what happens and it makes me very happy when it does. A lot of the time, however, it generates code that is wrong, or incomplete (while claiming it is complete), and so I end up having to babysit the code, either by further prompting or just editing the code. And then it makes a lot of software engineering become "type prompt, sit and wait a minute, look at the code, repeat", which means I'm decidedly not focusing the fun part of the project and instead I'm just larping as a manager who backseat codes. A friend of mine said that he likes to do this backwards: he writes a lot of the code himself and then he uses Claude Code to debug and automate writing tedious stuff like unit tests, and I think that might make it a little less mind numbing. Also, very tangential, and maybe my prompting game isn't completely on point here, but Codex seems decidedly bad at concurrent code [1]. I was working on some lock-free data store stuff, and Codex really wanted to add a bunch of lock files that were wholly unnecessary. Oh, and it kept trying to add mutexes into Rust, no matter how many times I tell it I don't want locks and it should use one-shot channels instead. To be fair, when I went and fixed the functions myself in a few spots and then told it to use that as an example, it did get a little better. [1] I think this particular case is because it's trained on example code from Github and most code involving concurrency uses locks (incorrectly or at least sub-optimally). I guess this particular problem may be more of the fault of American universities teaching concurrent programming incorrectly at the undergrad level.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
I find it useful to let one agent come up with a plan after a review and another agent implementing the plan. For example, Gemini reviewing the code, codex writing a plan and then Claude code implementing it
- mycall 10mo ago
  What about the reverse, after Claude code implements it, let Gemini/Codex do a code review for bugs and architecture revisions? I found it is important to prompt to only make absolutely minimal changes to the working code, or unwanted code clobbering will happen.

GajendraSahu23 10mo ago

This looks great! As someone just starting their coding journey, would using multiple agents (Claude/Gemini) help in learning best practices, or is it better suited for experienced developers for refactoring?

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thanks! You would need to instruct the agents to follow best practices and explain it while developing. Sometimes they get messy but if you use the right instructions/persona/skills then you will get very good results A final review from experienced developers is always recommended

omarkoudsi 10mo ago

I feel this is quite needed. I am beginner vibe coder and have already felt the need for this. I constantly shift back and forth.

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago
Thank you so much and would love to hear your feedback anytime

bahaAbunojaim 10mo ago

UPDATE: Mysti 0.2.2 Release Hey HN! Quick update on Mysti based on your feedback: 1- Mysti now supports GitHub Copilot CLI as a fourth provider. So you can now do Claude Code + Copilot (running GPT-5) in Brainstorm mode, or any combination of the 4 providers. Mix and match based on what catches different issues. 2- Mysti is now MIT Licensed. Switched from BSL 1.1 to MIT. 3- Better Auth UX When a CLI isn't authenticated, you now get a friendly error with one-click "Open Terminal & Authenticate" instead of cryptic CLI errors.

kundi 9mo ago

It sounds like an interesting experiment that you're doing. Are there any plans to support cli mode? Many developer are reluctant of VS code and other slow IDEs

bahaAbunojaim 9mo ago
We are actively working on it, hopefully will get something out in Jan with additional providers like cursor added

lostmsu 9mo ago

Huh? I just put something along the lines of: "use Gemini (`gemini <query>`) and Claude (`claude -p <query>`) for design review before trying to implement anything and for code review before reporting task completion" in a user-wide AGENTS.md