logoalt Hacker News

pioneerjeff • today at 7:59 AM • 1 reply • view on HN

I once tried to build something similar to your product on top of Codex, and I failed.

But my conclusion on plan mode is slightly different. I agree that plan mode itself may be a dead end, but I still believe there might be another way to achieve the same goal.

When I was building my product, I found that the biggest issue wasn't capability, but taste. The agent could build something that worked, but it often wasn't what I actually wanted. And behind that "taste" is a huge amount of implicit context — preferences, past decisions, product intuition, and trade-offs that live in my head. Distilling all of that into context takes a lot of effort, and I suspect giving it all to a single agent may eventually become overwhelming.

I've been wondering whether a better approach is to have multiple agents with different roles, prompts, and perspectives, and find a way for them to work together efficiently.

It's still just a hypothesis though. There are a lot of complicated coordination problems to figure out, and I don't have the answer yet.


Replies

t0mpr1c3 • today at 8:29 AM

For me, identifying a problem of "taste" doesn't exactly break it down. The problem is underspecified in some way. Can we be more specific?

The sense I get from this discussion is that the models/harnesses do not elicit feedback well. Where there is ambiguity, they tend to pick a solution and call it good.

A planning step aims to make these choices explicit. An iterative process is necessary to capture the detail.

It is natural to look to teams of agents to satisfy that process, but do they know where the decision points are?

➕ show 1 reply