Reasoning density.

I have a specific use case (financial analysis), that is at the edge of what is possible with this models (accuracy wise).

Gemini 2 was the beginning, you could see this technology could be helpful in this specific analysis but plenty of errors (not unlike a junior analyst). Gemini 2.5 flash was great actually useable, errors made were consistent.

This is where it gets interesting, I could add additional points to my system prompt, yes it would fix those errors but it would degrade the answer elsewhere, often it wouldn't be incorrect but merely much simpler less nuanced and less clever.

This is where multi-agents helped it actually meant the prompt can be broken down so that answers remain "clever". There is a big con to this, it is slow, slow to the point that I chose to stick with a single prompt (the request didn't work well operating in parallel as the other prompt surfaced factors for it to consider).

However Gemini 3 flash is now smart enough that I'd now consider my financial analysis solved. All with one prompt.

It's hard to accurately measure but one advantage that the multi-agent approach has seems to be speed. I routinely see Sisyphus launching up to 4 sub agents to read/analyse a file and/or to do things in parallel.

The quality of the output depends more on the underlying LLM. GLM 4.7 isn't going to beat Opus but Opus with an orchestra seems to be faster and perhaps marginally better than with a more linear approach.

Ofcourse this burns a lot of tokens but with a cheap subscription like z. ai or with a corporate budget does it really matter?

The readme (and probably most of the project) is likely generated by an LLM - chances are we'll learn more reading the prompts than the readme.

I actually tried this few days back before the Claude Code EULA reinforcement, I went through the same thing.

1. I honestly had a hard time parsing what this is supposed to do or provide over standard opencode setup from the readme. It is rather long-winded and have a lot of bombastic claims but doesnt really explain what it does.

2. Regardless, the claims are pretty enticing. Because I was in experiment mode, and I already had a VM running to try out some other stuff, I gave it a try

3. From what I can tell, its basically a set of configs and plugins to make opencode behave a certain way. Kinda like how lazyvim/astronvim are to neovim.

4. But for all its claims, it had a lot of issues - the setups are rather brittle and was hard to get working out of the box (this is from someone who is pretty comfortable tinkering with vim configs), when I managed to get it working (at least I think its working), its kinda meh? It uses up way more tokens than the default opencode, for worse (or at less consistent) results.

5, FWIW, I dont find the multi/sub-agent workflow to be all that useful for most tasks, or at the very least its still very early IMO, kinda like the function calling phase of chatgpt to really be useful.

6. I was actually able to grok most of Steve Yegge's gastown post from the other day. He made-up a lot of terms that I think made things even more confusing, but I was able to recognize many of the concepts as things that I also had thought of them in a "it would be cool if we can do X/Y/Z" manner. Not with this project.

TBH, at this point im not sure if I'm using it wrong or am I missing something, or this is just how people market their projects in the age of LLM.

edit: what I tried the other day was the code-yeongyu/oh-my-opencode, not this (fork?) project

At least its open source ?

It’s not hard to set up a router/proxy for Claude Code to use something else.

That has really been the "OpenCode and Anthropic" fight, OMO is still a tiny player compared to all OpenCode (and other such clients) usage.

Do you have a link to some background? I'm curious why it was banned.

In my experience multi-agent orchestration frameworks usually accomplish vague to unnoticable to straight up worse results compared just getting used to the vanilla tools before impulsively installing the daily flavor of "I made Claude Code better". I'm guessing you've probably already noticed by now these come out daily. But a look at the repo shows that they do at least halfway use sub-agents in the way most people are starting to realize they're (currently at least) most helpful imo, which is managing context bloat in the main chats. Not a fan of wishfully creating "expert" agents which amount to little more than prompts asking Claude to a good job at the task. I'm honestly not sure why that couldn't be a slash command at that point.

If you're an engineering manager, you should communicate with your team, know their strengths and weaknesses, stay sharp on modern technique, and, most importantly, ask them what workflows work best for them, not us on Hacker News.

If you're hiring a consultancy or a pile of freelancers it's a bit different, but the question here would make me believe you don't trust their capability to start and I would be looking for teams that better align with what you expect as their outputs.

No. Just, no to all of this

Enforce?