bahaAbunojaim

Fair enough on personas, I like to activate skills more than personas, for example I activate the auto commit skill to ensure the agent would automatically commit after finishing a feature

The way it works is that each agent think independently, discuss the solution and each agent opinion then one will synthesize a solution.

But then codex won't have the full context of your existing work and might need to go through its own exploratory path

The skill would allow Claude Code CLI to call Codex CLI but then Claude Code CLI will need to pass context to Codex which would require writing the context "which causes latency" and this process of writing the context will provide limited context to Codex and also eat up from the main context window. Mysti shares the context which is very different from passing context as a parameter.

I believe high level languages will be replaced by natural human language, the same way as low level languages replaced by high level languages. It is the natural evolution of development.

On the other hand agentic teams will take over solo agents.

This is very interesting, maybe I can also integrate it into Mysti

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

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

Claude code, Gemini and codex are all supported but need more testing so I would really value the feedback, bug reports and contributions as well :D

Contributions will be highly appreciated and credited

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

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 agree, I find it very helpful to ask agents to think using a different persona too

Thank you so much! Let me know if you face any issues and happy to address it

Good idea! Very good point

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 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 ?

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 ?

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 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

It is free and open source. Will make it MIT

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

Planning to make it work without that limit, did that to avoid complexity but contributions are welcome

I think once I add cursor and cline then will also try to make it work with any number of agents

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?

How about adding the ability to tag an agent. for example:

@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 ?

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

Thinking of switching to MIT, what do you think? Is there any other license you would recommend ?

I’m planning to add Cursor and Cline in the next major release, will try to get in out in Jan

I will look it up indeed

Very true, I like the fact that I can now use them with a consistent UI, shared context and ability to brainstorm

Will definitely try to add those features in a future release as well

Any other ideas that you think would make it more powerful?