Personally, this is somewhat close to what I want.
I want to have a fullblown cursor instance/window for each task I have, and a central Hub that manages spawning those instances, setting up the worktrees, etc.
Cursor seems to pretty much have all the available tools there already (it can already spawn agents to their own worktrees with proper setup scripts, for example). I don't get why they don't do it and instead insist on a buggy and confusing agents experience.
Unfortunately, most attempts at this seem to assume I want a model where "1 task = 1 agent = 1 chat", whereas what I really want is "1 task = 1 worktree = 1 full IDE around it".
With the full IDE I can have multiple agents/conversations, review code thoroughly and also chip in once in a while. I can have multiple models (that I pick) in multiple chats, iterate forwards, backwards, you name it.
I really don't understand why there seems to be this idea that "parallel agents" should live in their own little restricted flow that's limited to a tiny chat interface. I want the full flow for every agent!
I was hoping cursor would do this, but they really seem to be going the direction of turning their absolutely terrible web agents UI (where you can't even CHANGE THE MODEL!!!!) into a desktop thing. Sad, as I've been an Ultra paying customer and might have to leave soon with the direction they're heading.
I keep wondering how people accept a nights worth of agent activity.
I feel 30 minutes of planning and 30 minutes of implementation in my solo side project's repo is too big to review. At minute 5, I may ask the AI to redo stuff even as its spitting out code.
A lot of that agent activity is combing over what was previously made, forcing constraints upon it so you have a reasonable expectation of what ends up on your desk for review.
For me, strong file structure helps as well. Reviewing a 3,000 line file it just created is abysmal. I wouldn't accept that from human nor machine :) Multiple files in the right places helps reduce cognitive load.
Sometimes I'll also review with the agent interactively. What is the most important file to review first, etc?
I like to stage changes into a "LGTM" pile. Then if I want changes, I'll have the agent "review unstaged changes - I want something different done here."
Even the newest models, like GPT 5.5, only deliver what I want nine out of ten times. If I didn't catch the remaining 10% of misguided garbage by manually reviewing every change, it would add up really quickly.
I have got more frustrations than successes when I tried to run agent without supervising them. I believe the agent technology will get there eventually, but right now I need one IDE per agent and its cumbersome to merge the work.
> "Local-first, zero servers. Everything lives in .kanbots/ next to your repo: SQLite database, configs, worktrees. No cloud account, no telemetry, no HTTP server. This is the open-source desktop edition."
This is table-stakes for me to consider adoption of a tool like this.
If AI is agentic I would expect it takes an hour of chatting for any PM to integrate some agent Ralph loop with Jira. Jira or Trello or Linear or Basecamp all have APIs and I guess CLIs any agent can use to talk to them. No developer or SaaS should be needed to make them understand tasks are checked out when you start work and contain instructions and when you are done you move the ticket to DONE.
The minimum required payment to play a gambling game, where the money up for grabs is called "stake". See also "raising the stakes". In context it means the minimum feature set to be considered for adoption.
There's a few apps out there that facilitate handing off to agents from kanban boards. I needed something more 'human in the loop', handing off to an agent without good visibility of the change set and opportunity to steer doesn't work for me. https://www.agentkanban.io links a taskboard with github copilot chat in vs code via our extension so we have the benefit of task management and context capture from the chat to the tasks. This gives us all the features of a top harness (vs code) and the task / project management features at the same time.
Tangential question for Claude Code subscribers, mid June `claude -p` will move to api pricing (with some "SDK credits" before it kicks in), so headless usage will become 20-30 times more expensive, and all these high level orchestrator tools/workflows depend on it. What the next move for you? How does the OpenAI subscriptions compare? Similar limitations?
Hello folks, sharing my latest open source project, a kanban board with parallel agents. Trying to improve this with more features, I would love your contributions on this repo, with either code contributions or ideas
Nice work .. I have had my own agents running kanban on existing Jira projects, categorized by workflow, and it is a pleasure to see your project on HN today. I will for sure enjoy catching up with your work, thanks for sharing it.
Gave it a brief shot, felt a bit early on, went back to Claude. I feel like the Kanban board that would do it best would just allow easily bringing up Claude Code sessions with all user input etc.
Yes, this is like, the best thing ever .. I've generally been doing this, albeit with command-line Jira and a "my workflow is my prompt" philosophy, resulting in a fleet of little kanbans .. and my agents are really, really doing well. They never sleep, eat, etc.
But .. you know something cute? AI makes using Jira fun, again.
Just post the GitHub page if it’s open-source. It’s great you have a domain name, but if your website is going to look the same as every other SaaS product designed by Claude it’s really hard to look past that and look at the novelty or benefits of the product.
These pages do look good. But they all just look the same. And I'm getting bored of them.
I open such a page and I immediately know it was Claude that produced it (probably end-to-end). Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it lacks soul… and that makes me kind of sad.
Personally, this is somewhat close to what I want.
I want to have a fullblown cursor instance/window for each task I have, and a central Hub that manages spawning those instances, setting up the worktrees, etc.
Cursor seems to pretty much have all the available tools there already (it can already spawn agents to their own worktrees with proper setup scripts, for example). I don't get why they don't do it and instead insist on a buggy and confusing agents experience.
Unfortunately, most attempts at this seem to assume I want a model where "1 task = 1 agent = 1 chat", whereas what I really want is "1 task = 1 worktree = 1 full IDE around it".
With the full IDE I can have multiple agents/conversations, review code thoroughly and also chip in once in a while. I can have multiple models (that I pick) in multiple chats, iterate forwards, backwards, you name it.
I really don't understand why there seems to be this idea that "parallel agents" should live in their own little restricted flow that's limited to a tiny chat interface. I want the full flow for every agent!
I was hoping cursor would do this, but they really seem to be going the direction of turning their absolutely terrible web agents UI (where you can't even CHANGE THE MODEL!!!!) into a desktop thing. Sad, as I've been an Ultra paying customer and might have to leave soon with the direction they're heading.
I keep wondering how people accept a nights worth of agent activity.
I feel 30 minutes of planning and 30 minutes of implementation in my solo side project's repo is too big to review. At minute 5, I may ask the AI to redo stuff even as its spitting out code.
A lot of that agent activity is combing over what was previously made, forcing constraints upon it so you have a reasonable expectation of what ends up on your desk for review.
For me, strong file structure helps as well. Reviewing a 3,000 line file it just created is abysmal. I wouldn't accept that from human nor machine :) Multiple files in the right places helps reduce cognitive load.
Sometimes I'll also review with the agent interactively. What is the most important file to review first, etc?
I like to stage changes into a "LGTM" pile. Then if I want changes, I'll have the agent "review unstaged changes - I want something different done here."
I wonder the same. The answer I usually get from people who do manage is that they don't look at the code – or at least not in detail.
Personally, I always end up tweaking something the agent produced. I wonder if I should let go of that control...
Even the newest models, like GPT 5.5, only deliver what I want nine out of ten times. If I didn't catch the remaining 10% of misguided garbage by manually reviewing every change, it would add up really quickly.
yeah
They most likely don’t review it ;)
I have got more frustrations than successes when I tried to run agent without supervising them. I believe the agent technology will get there eventually, but right now I need one IDE per agent and its cumbersome to merge the work.
> "Local-first, zero servers. Everything lives in .kanbots/ next to your repo: SQLite database, configs, worktrees. No cloud account, no telemetry, no HTTP server. This is the open-source desktop edition."
This is table-stakes for me to consider adoption of a tool like this.
What is ”a tool like this”?
If AI is agentic I would expect it takes an hour of chatting for any PM to integrate some agent Ralph loop with Jira. Jira or Trello or Linear or Basecamp all have APIs and I guess CLIs any agent can use to talk to them. No developer or SaaS should be needed to make them understand tasks are checked out when you start work and contain instructions and when you are done you move the ticket to DONE.
what is a table-stake?
The minimum required payment to play a gambling game, where the money up for grabs is called "stake". See also "raising the stakes". In context it means the minimum feature set to be considered for adoption.
This is basically what Windsurf is doing right [0]? Ultimately all this UI stuff is just window dressing on top of agents.
[0] https://windsurf.com/blog/windsurf-2-0
There's a few apps out there that facilitate handing off to agents from kanban boards. I needed something more 'human in the loop', handing off to an agent without good visibility of the change set and opportunity to steer doesn't work for me. https://www.agentkanban.io links a taskboard with github copilot chat in vs code via our extension so we have the benefit of task management and context capture from the chat to the tasks. This gives us all the features of a top harness (vs code) and the task / project management features at the same time.
>There's a few apps out there that facilitate handing off to agents from kanban boards.
jira-cli and hermes, for example.
in fact, wiring hermes up to an existing Jira(/other_PM_system) is, well .. fruitful.
I don’t see a problem here. Do you?
Also, Linear themselves are also working on this.
Is windsurf open source?
Tangential question for Claude Code subscribers, mid June `claude -p` will move to api pricing (with some "SDK credits" before it kicks in), so headless usage will become 20-30 times more expensive, and all these high level orchestrator tools/workflows depend on it. What the next move for you? How does the OpenAI subscriptions compare? Similar limitations?
Hello folks, sharing my latest open source project, a kanban board with parallel agents. Trying to improve this with more features, I would love your contributions on this repo, with either code contributions or ideas
Nice work .. I have had my own agents running kanban on existing Jira projects, categorized by workflow, and it is a pleasure to see your project on HN today. I will for sure enjoy catching up with your work, thanks for sharing it.
You should check out Stripe's dev blog about minions. Seems directionally similar.
Cline was also working on something like this: https://github.com/cline/kanban
I thought it was the same product. Have any of you used either of them?
Gave it a brief shot, felt a bit early on, went back to Claude. I feel like the Kanban board that would do it best would just allow easily bringing up Claude Code sessions with all user input etc.
https://github.com/openai/symphony
To the website maintainers: https://www.kanbots.dev/comparisons returns a 404
Yes, this is like, the best thing ever .. I've generally been doing this, albeit with command-line Jira and a "my workflow is my prompt" philosophy, resulting in a fleet of little kanbans .. and my agents are really, really doing well. They never sleep, eat, etc.
But .. you know something cute? AI makes using Jira fun, again.
Could this be something running of our a Github kanban board?
fyi https://github.com/multica-ai/multica
https://github.com/moridinamael/platespinner
big opportunity to buy kan.bot
I don't understand this.
It looks like a kanban interface to agent orchestration.
Just post the GitHub page if it’s open-source. It’s great you have a domain name, but if your website is going to look the same as every other SaaS product designed by Claude it’s really hard to look past that and look at the novelty or benefits of the product.
These pages do look good. But they all just look the same. And I'm getting bored of them.
I open such a page and I immediately know it was Claude that produced it (probably end-to-end). Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it lacks soul… and that makes me kind of sad.