alt Hacker NewsI can certainly see the appeal of distributing the context with vc. However, I have always imagined this to be integrated into an existing kanban workflow, similar to a Jira or gh issue board. Perhaps agent specific, perhaps not.
Furthermore, an existing kanban (ticket) workflow will expect you to refine the context into something more ... concentrated, or at least something that we are used to seeing as developers working with tickets, at least more so than the chat history that seem to be favored.
Have you put any thought into how this would integrate into such a process?
I did - GitHub and Trello (and I expect Jira) have APIs that could be used to hook up an MCP server. I liked the idea of conversing with the agent in the ticket, but I decided against that because I'd have to keep refreshing the issues, and it seemed a bit janky moving in and out of the IDE.
I also considered a full harness that could stream / sync the responses, but as per my comment below, implementing a full harness meant loosing a lot of the IDE integration features that come with the hand off to GitHub Copilot.
> I went down the route of implementing a full harness for a while like Vibe Kanban, but the issue was that it was unlikely (without significant effort) to be as good as Github Copilot chat, and it meant forfeiting all of the IDE integrations etc (like diff visualisation for the agents actions etc).
Having worked with a flow similar to this for a while - the markdown files become quite valuable as a history of planning and decisions for features. I didn't want to loose that. I just needed some help with managing the plan files I was maintaining - which the kanban board tooling does. A few command shortcuts via @kanban help too
Regarding what goes into the files, the agent tends to be quite concise - you don't see the whole train of thought that some of the harnesses surface.