4 ms·
It's interesting that you find compaction trivial. I think it's one of the most important tasks, to the point where I use Amp these days because its "handoff" f
by SatvikBeri 8mo ago
It's interesting that you find compaction trivial. I think it's one of the most important tasks, to the point where I use Amp these days because its "handoff" feature is so much nicer than CC's compaction.
- handfuloflight 8mo agoWhat's nicer about their handoff feature?
- SatvikBeri 8mo agoIt's a lot of little things + polish more than any big change. Amp has a first-class concept of threads, a tree of sessions. This is really nice for long work on related features, it tracks which threads are spawned from others. When you type /handoff, it asks you for a goal for the new thread, then summarizes your existing context with respect to that goal, and opens a new thread with just that context. This makes it really easy and pleasant to spin up new sessions to do relatively focused tasks, which keeps your context usage low and the model smarter. It also enables some really nice use cases like opening up an old thread where you built a feature two weeks ago, then spinning up a new one to do a modification. You can do all of this with Claude Code but it's just clunkier and in my experience hasn't worked nearly as well, e.g. I find the compactions tend to be full of a lot of useless stuff, or miss something important compared to the handoffs.
- behnamoh 8mo agois it similar to the concept of "branch off from here" feature in some chat UIs where you can continue one convo in different directions? but does amp keep each thread in a separate worktree/isolated env and let you choose which one to merge?