For an adhd mind that serial interface is a bless and hell at the same time. Great for the detailed planning discussion, bad for checking the results.

I am currently working on canvas-based interfaces for that reason and i would think the only way to really create value here is with a deep independent analysis and visualization of the changes afterwards to reach some ease of mind. Live would be cool (if you like that)

When it comes to planning itself, I recently tried the token-saving planning plus phases execution agents approach and had to find out that agents actually don't necessarily communicate better by prose-reduced specs than we do.

I had to go back to the planning agent to implement or fix things with our full planning context in mind. So if you want really high control for a "tight" implementation, I'd say just sharing plans is not enough. The probability of things getting filled in by the executing agents rises and you either find yourself holding those agents' hands or fixing things afterwards.

Actually phases are still to large and you would actually want the planning agent to hold that hand all the time, meaning small context is not the way to go, as you might need the full checking context much more often than current phases sizes suggested by the planning "doc" would use it.

Distributed building still is the way to go though, steady control by the overall context or one specifically thinned out for the particular job is. But don't go prose-based plans anymore. These are dead indeed.