Has the author (not OP) written anything on this topic themselves? This is a blunt comment, because I am fed up with being asked to read LLM content that the prompter thinks is novel and worthwhile because they don't know better.

I can forgive (even root for) someone who puts in the effort themselves to understand a problem and write about it, even if they fall short or miss. They have skin in the game. I have little patience for someone who doesn't understand the disproportionate burden generated content places on the READER.

I can certainly tell they've put the model through the ringer to be terse and use simple language, etc. But I am struggling to separate the human ideas from the vibed ones, and the tone of the whole thing is the usual LLM elevator pitch with "hushed reverence" * "movie trailer cadence".

But "spawn/fork" is just a different way of labeling the fairly-well-understood tactic (I won't call it a strategy) of just how much context to provide sub-agents. Claude Code already "spawns" everytime it does an explore. It can do this concurrently, too.

Beyond that, they seem to express wonder at how well models can use tools:

> In the example above, the agent chose spawn for the independent research tasks and fork for the analysis that needs everything. It made this choice on its own — the model understands the distinction intuitively.

Emphasis mine. They (or the model whose output they blindly published) are anthropomorphizing software that is already designed to work this way. They gave it "fork" and "spawn" tools. Are they claiming they didn't describe exactly how they were supposed to be used in the tool spec?