Hacker News Reader

Comment by CharlieDigital | Hacker News Reader

Try it. 3 weeks ago I was in the same boat. Single model, TUI. I only tried Paseo primarily to test multi-host orchestration (after giving up on Herdr) and not even multi-agent, multi-plat behavior.

Output quality, especially subjective bits, has improved relative to my attention needed. Autonomous decision making is much, much better for me adding one profile that specifically is instructed to focus on UI/UX, one for end user proxy, and one for MTS.

It costs you nothing to try except maybe 15 minutes of setup. Give it a solid, skeptical week. It's good even without the profiles, but way better with.

Try my profiles as a starting point: https://gist.github.com/CharlieDigital/1c496a2799862795f0c31...

View on HN

In your comparison, did you previously use a review with a different model family?

Because that step is imo crucial, and it's unclear to me whether additional benefits of the roles are worth it over the basic review.

I can see how roles that ask the "planner" to explore other approaches automatically could be useful.

However, I don't have any interest in using small or dumb models for implementation when the subscription allowance permits using Opus 5.5 everywhere.

Yes, have done cross plat plan review. But why it works so well with Paseo is that it's automatic and multi-turn (agents kind of "discuss" (I say "kind of" because agents don't really discuss like you or I would with short, multi-turn speak-listen-pivot-repeat).

Work tokens are severely limited to the extent that if I used Sonnet 5.5 for implementation, I'd be out 2h into a session (Team 5x). +$400/mo. at API rates on OpenAI. So Haiku + Luna it is. There is no other way this is even usable for agentic dev at work. Works fine for people who multi-turn with a single agent.

Personal accounts I run the $17 Anthropic plan + $100 Codex Pro + DeepSeek. It's insane how much this stretches with this setup.

Maybe the crux here is how hands on you are with your sessions. As I've moved more hands off, I'm relying on other agents to take my place by embedding my heuristics into their config.

It's automatic and multi-turn by default.

I've had an instruction to review the code with "claude -p" in place around the time GPT-5.5 released. I think it has served me well.

If I recall correctly it was before subagents were a thing. Even back then it was already automatic and would on its own request follow-up reviews or arbitrate a plan file if asked.

I tried it and figured out the benefit was getting the agent to look at solving the problem from different perspectives. Now I just include those perspectives in the prompt to a single agent. Example: If I feel like the agent is going to just bolt on a feature without refactoring the core parts, I tell it to expand functionality of the core parts as needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com