A workflow I find useful is to have multiple CLI agents running in different Tmux panes and have one consult/delegate to another using my Tmux-CLI [1] tool + skill. Advantage of this is that the agents’ work is fully visible and I can intervene as needed.
Have you considered using their command line options instead? At least Codex and Claude both support feeding in new prompts in an ongoing conversation via the command line, and can return text or stream JSON back.
You mean so-called headless or non-interactive mode? Yes I’ve considered that but the advantage communication via Tmux panes is that all agent work is fully visible and you can intervene as needed.
My repo has other tools that leverage such headless agents; for example there’s a resume [1] functionality that provides alternatives to compaction (which is not great since it always loses valuable context details):
The “smart-trim” feature uses a headless agent to find irrelevant long messages for truncation, and the “rollover” feature creates a new session and injects session lineage links, with a customizable extraction of context for the task to be continued.
I have a similar workflow except I haven’t put time into the tooling - Claude is adept at TMUX and it can almost even prompt and respond to ChatGPT except it always forgets to press Enter when it sends keys. Have your agents been able to communicate with each other with tmux send-keys?
I had the same issue. Subagents are nice but the LLM calling them can’t have a back and forth conversation. I tried tmux-cli and even other options like AgentAPI[0] but the same issue persists, the agent can’t have a back and forth with the tmux pane.
To people asking why would you want Claude to call Codex or Gemini, it’s because of orchestration. We have an architect skill we feed the first agent. That agent can call subagents or even use tmux and feed in the builder skill. The architect is harnessed to a CRUD application just keeping track of what features were built already so the builder is focused on building only.
I find that asking Claude to develop and Codex to review the uncommitted changes will typically result in high-value code, and eliminate all of Claude’s propensity to perpetually lie and cheat. Sometimes I also ideate with Claude and then ask Claude to get ChatGPT’s opinion on the matter. I started by copy-pasting responses but I found tmux to be a nice way to get rid of the middleman.
The idea works well with or without direct integration. You can have a cli agent read arbitrary state of any tmux session and have it drive work through it. I use it for everything from dev work to system debugging. It turns out a portable and callable binary with simple parameters is still easier to use for agents than protocols and skills: https://github.com/tikimcfee/gomuxai
There’s no special support needed; it’s just a bash command that any CLI agent can use. For agents that have skills, the corresponding skill helps leverage more easily. I’ll add that to the README
I have both Codex and Claude subs so I wanted one to be able to consult the other. Also it’s useful when you have a cli script that an agent is iterating on, so it can test it. Another use case is for a CLI agent to run a debugger like PDB in another pane, though I haven’t used it much.
I used to get stuck sometimes with Claude and needing a different agent to take a look and the switch back and forth between those agents is a headache and also you won’t be able to port all the context so thought this might help solve real blockers for many devs on larger projects
I've had good success with a similar workflow, most recently using it to help me build out a captive-wifi debugger[0]. In short, it worked _pretty_ well, but it was quite time intensive. That said, I think removing the human from the loop would have been insanity on this: lots of situations where there were some very poor ideas suggested that the other LLMs went along with, and others where one LLM was the sole voice of reason against the other two.
I think my only real take-away from all of it was that Claude is probably the best at prototyping code, where Codex make a very strong (but pedantic) code-reviewer. Gemini was all over the place, sometimes inspired, sometimes idiotic.
This is exactly why I built Mysti because I used that flow very often and it worked well, I also added personas and skills so that it is easy to customize the agents behavior and if you have any ideas to make the behavior better then please don’t hesitate to share! Happy to jump on a call and discuss it as well
Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models may help though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you’re increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2 LLM’s quirks).
But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer.
If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.
I created a simple skill in Claude Code CLI that collaborates with Codex CLI. It is just a prompt saved in the skill format. It uses subagents as well.
Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?
Why make it a vscode extension if the point of these 3 tools is a cli interface? Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. Is VSC required?
> Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode.
I guess it depends?
You can usually count on Claude Code or Codex or Gemini CLI to support the model features the best, but sometimes having a consistent UI across all of them is also nice - be it another CLI tool like OpenCode (that was a bit buggy for me when it came to copying text), or maybe Cline/RooCode/KiloCode inside of VSC, so you don't also have to install a custom editor like Cursor but can use your pre-existing VSC setup.
Okay, that was a bit of a run on sentence, but it's nice to be able to work on some context and then to switch between different models inline: "Hey Sonnet, please look at the work of the previous model up until this point and validate its findings about the cause of this bug."
I'd also love it if I could hook up some of those models (especially what Cerebras Code offers) with autocomplete so I wouldn't need Copilot either, but most of the plugins that try to do that are pretty buggy or broken (e.g. Continue.dev). KiloCode also added autocomplete, but it doesn't seem to work with BYOK.
I was a proponent initially of CLI when Claude integration with VSCode required a WSL instance, but now that it is integrated directly into VSCode I feel one grouping of tooling hiccups is now ruled out in my workflow. The only (major) nitpick I have is that it wont let you finish typing and cuts you off when asking whether/how to proceed.
Have to keep in mind that what is happening now is basically what was promised decades ago. Never mind 4GL, 5GL, expert systems, and other efforts that went nowhere... even COBOL was created with the intention of making programming look more like natural language.
Often, revolutions take longer to happen than we think they will, and then they happen faster than we think they will. And when the tipping point is finally reached, we find more people pushing back than we thought there would be.
Great idea. Whether brainstorm mode is actually useful is hard to say without trying it out, but it sounds like an interesting approach. Maybe it would be a good idea to try running a SWE benchmark with it.
Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write more code than tinker with settings or personas.
https://github.com/just-every/code "Every Code - push frontier AI to it limits. A fork of the Codex CLI with validation, automation, browser integration, multi-agents, theming, and much more. Orchestrate agents from OpenAI, Claude, Gemini or any provider." Apache 2.0 ; Community fork;
My similar workflow within Claude Code when it gets stuck is to have it consult Gemini. Works either through Gemini CLI or the API. Surprisingly powerful pattern because I've just found that Gemini is still ahead of Opus in architectural reasoning and figuring out difficult bugs. https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp
Here's a portable binary you drop in a directory to allow agentic cli to cross communicate with other agents, store and read state, or act as the driver of arbitrary tmux sessions in parallel: https://github.com/tikimcfee/gomuxai
Happy to help build said integration with ya, feel free to post an issue, fork, or send me a dm. The tool itself exposes the internal DB as well so others with interest can access logs, context, etc.
Interesting indeed but would it behave the same as Claude code or will it have its own behavior, I think the system prompt is one of the key things that differentiate every agent
Will give it a look indeed, I think one of the challenges with the MCP approach is that the context need to be passed and that would add to the overhead of the main agent. Is that right?
Don’t quote me, but I think the other methods rely on passing general detail/commands and file paths to Gemini to avoid the context overhead you’re thinking about.
Anecdotal experience, but when bugfixing I personally find if a model introduces a bug, it has a hard time spotting and fixing it, but when you give the code to another model it can instantly spot it (even if it's a weaker model overall).
So I can well imagine that this sort of approach could work very well, although agree with your sentiment that measurement would be good.
> Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem?
I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things. I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a nice interface.
If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be excited to try it out when back at work.
> Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future
Autogen from ms was an early attempt at this, and it was fun to play with it, but too early (the models themselves kinda crapped out after a few convos). This would work much better today with how long agents can stay on track.
There was also a finding earlier this year, I believe from the swe-bench guys (or hf?), where they saw better scores with alternating between gpt5/sonnet4 after each call during an execution flow. The scores of alternating between them were higher than any of them individually. Found that interesting at the time.
Thank you so much for sharing Denis! I definitely believe in the that as the world start switching from single agent to agentic teams where each agent does have specific capabilities. do you know of any benchmarks that covers collaborative agents ?
For me when it’s front end I usually work with Claude and have codex review. Otherwise I just work with codex… Claude also if I’m being lazy and want a thing quickly
This is very useful! I frequently copy the response of one model and ask another to review it and I have seen really good results with that approach.
Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it allows to use multiple models.
Will do. I was thinking of also making the LLMs configurable across the agents. I saw a post from the founder of openrouter that you can use DeepSeek with Claude code and was thinking of making it possible to use more LLMs across agents
Regarding DeepMyst. In the future will offer “optionally” the ability to use smart context where the context will be automatically optimized such that you won’t hit the context window limit “ basically no need for compact” and you would get much higher usage limits because the number of tokens needed will be reduced by up to 80% so you would be able to achieve with a 20 USD claude plan the same as the Pro plan
I think you will still pay for 3 times the tokens for a single model rather than 3 but will consolidate payment.
I was thinking to make the model choice more dynamic per agent such that you can use any model with any agent and have one single payment for all so you won’t repeat and pay for 3 or more different tools. Is that in line with what you are saying ?
Neither the original issue (having three models) nor this one (un consolidated payments) have anything to do with the end result / quality of the output.
Executing multiple agents on the same model also works.
I find it helpful to even change the persona of the same agent “the prompt” or the model the agent is using. These variations always help but I found having multiple different agents with different LLMs in the backend works better
I love where you're going with this. In my experience it's not about a different persona, it's about constantly considering context that triggers, different activations enhance a different outcome. You can achieve the same thing, of course by switching to an agent with a separate persona, but you can also get it simply by injecting new context, or forcing the agent to consider something new. I feel like this concept gets cargo-culted a little bit.
I personally have moved to a pattern where i use mastra-agents in my project to achieve this. I've slowly shifted the bulk of the code research and web research to my internal tools (built with small typescript agents).. I can now really easily bounce between different tools such as claude, codex, opencode and my coding tools are spending more time orchestrating work than doing the work themselves.
That might be true but if you change the system instructions “which is at the beginning of the prompt” then caching doesn’t hit. So different agents would most likely skip caching unless the last prompt is different then you get the benefit of caching indeed
I have been using it for some time and it getting better and better with time in many cases it’s giving better output than other tools the comparison is great feature too keep up the good work
Not if you optimize the tokens used. This is what DeepMyst actually do, one of the things we offer is token optimization where we can reduce up to 80% of the context so even if you use twice the optimized context you will end up with 60% less tokens.
Note that this functionality is not yet integrated with Mysti but we are planning to add it in the near future and happy to accelerate.
I think token optimization will help with larger projects, longer context and avoiding compact.
I think the main difference is that Mysti consults with agents rather than the underlying LLM and in the future potentially the agents can switch LLMs as well
[1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...
My repo has other tools that leverage such headless agents; for example there’s a resume [1] functionality that provides alternatives to compaction (which is not great since it always loses valuable context details): The “smart-trim” feature uses a headless agent to find irrelevant long messages for truncation, and the “rollover” feature creates a new session and injects session lineage links, with a customizable extraction of context for the task to be continued.
[1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...
To people asking why would you want Claude to call Codex or Gemini, it’s because of orchestration. We have an architect skill we feed the first agent. That agent can call subagents or even use tmux and feed in the builder skill. The architect is harnessed to a CRUD application just keeping track of what features were built already so the builder is focused on building only.
0. https://github.com/coder/agentapi
Contributions will be highly appreciated and credited
I think my only real take-away from all of it was that Claude is probably the best at prototyping code, where Codex make a very strong (but pedantic) code-reviewer. Gemini was all over the place, sometimes inspired, sometimes idiotic.
0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/captive-wifi-tool/tree/main
But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer.
If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.
Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?
I guess it depends?
You can usually count on Claude Code or Codex or Gemini CLI to support the model features the best, but sometimes having a consistent UI across all of them is also nice - be it another CLI tool like OpenCode (that was a bit buggy for me when it came to copying text), or maybe Cline/RooCode/KiloCode inside of VSC, so you don't also have to install a custom editor like Cursor but can use your pre-existing VSC setup.
Okay, that was a bit of a run on sentence, but it's nice to be able to work on some context and then to switch between different models inline: "Hey Sonnet, please look at the work of the previous model up until this point and validate its findings about the cause of this bug."
I'd also love it if I could hook up some of those models (especially what Cerebras Code offers) with autocomplete so I wouldn't need Copilot either, but most of the plugins that try to do that are pretty buggy or broken (e.g. Continue.dev). KiloCode also added autocomplete, but it doesn't seem to work with BYOK.
Will definitely try to add those features in a future release as well
Often, revolutions take longer to happen than we think they will, and then they happen faster than we think they will. And when the tipping point is finally reached, we find more people pushing back than we thought there would be.
But actually hosted on https://www.deepmyst.com/ with no forwarding from the Apex domain to www so it looks like the website is down.
Otherwise excited to deep dive into this as this is a variant of how we do development and seems to work great when the AI fights each other.
Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write more code than tinker with settings or personas.
Update:
I've already found a solution based on a comment, and modified it a bit.
Inside claude code i've made a new agent that uses the MCP gemini through https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp. this seems to work!
Claude code:
Now let me launch the Gemini MCP specialist to build the backend monitoring server:
gemini-mcp-specialist(Build monitoring backend server) ⎿ Running PreToolUse hook…
“If”, oh, idk, just the tool 90% of potential users will have installed.
@gemini could you review the code and then provide a summary to @claude?
@claude can you write the classes based on an architectural review by @codex
What do you think? Does that make sense ?
https://github.com/BeehiveInnovations/pal-mcp-server
Don’t quote me, but I think the other methods rely on passing general detail/commands and file paths to Gemini to avoid the context overhead you’re thinking about.
Do they?
There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.
So I can well imagine that this sort of approach could work very well, although agree with your sentiment that measurement would be good.
I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things. I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a nice interface.
If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be excited to try it out when back at work.
You may want to study [1] - this is the latest thinking on agent collaboration from Google.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-...
Autogen from ms was an early attempt at this, and it was fun to play with it, but too early (the models themselves kinda crapped out after a few convos). This would work much better today with how long agents can stay on track.
There was also a finding earlier this year, I believe from the swe-bench guys (or hf?), where they saw better scores with alternating between gpt5/sonnet4 after each call during an execution flow. The scores of alternating between them were higher than any of them individually. Found that interesting at the time.
Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it allows to use multiple models.
This turned me off as well. Especially with no published pricing and a link to a site that is not about this product.
At minimum, publish pricing.
That may solve the original problem of paying for three different models.
I was thinking to make the model choice more dynamic per agent such that you can use any model with any agent and have one single payment for all so you won’t repeat and pay for 3 or more different tools. Is that in line with what you are saying ?
Can you comment on that?
I find it helpful to even change the persona of the same agent “the prompt” or the model the agent is using. These variations always help but I found having multiple different agents with different LLMs in the backend works better
I personally have moved to a pattern where i use mastra-agents in my project to achieve this. I've slowly shifted the bulk of the code research and web research to my internal tools (built with small typescript agents).. I can now really easily bounce between different tools such as claude, codex, opencode and my coding tools are spending more time orchestrating work than doing the work themselves.
If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.
Note that this functionality is not yet integrated with Mysti but we are planning to add it in the near future and happy to accelerate.
I think token optimization will help with larger projects, longer context and avoiding compact.
I think once I add cursor and cline then will also try to make it work with any number of agents
https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council