Could you tell us what makes this different from other agent orchestration software?
Also I’m struggling to understand the significance of the 193 tests. Are these to validate the output of the agents?
If they’re just there to prevent regressions in your code, the size of a test suite is not usually a selling point. In particular, for a product this complicated, 193 is a small number of tests, which either means each test does a lot (probably too much) or you’re lacking coverage. Either way I wouldn’t advertise “193 tests”.
I agree with what you’re saying. However given the reputation of openclaw (and I presume many other vibe coded spaghetti monsters) I appreciate the signal “I care about quality”.
I find that speaking the words (knowing the different sounds of the letters) allows me to understand way further back than if I try read them. I noticed this in undergrad linguistics which has a module on old English.
Mostly really good. Because it’s HN I have a few quibbles:
What’s wrong with a daily synchronous call?
Some of this reads like micromanagement. Why does a project organizer need to spend lots of time tracking people, why aren’t they recording what they’re working on in a transparent manner?
This is surprising to me. The advice about what team members should be able to is the stuff I find agents least capable of doing, e.g. autonomously identifying the most important work and knowing when something is done.
I assumed that they are saying that you spend $1k per day and that makes the developer as productive as some multiple of the number of people you could hire for that $1k.
The biggest rewards for human developers came from building addictive eyeball-getters for adverts so I don’t see how we can expect a very high bar for the results of their replacement AI factories. Real-world and tangible just seem completely out of the picture.
Also I’m struggling to understand the significance of the 193 tests. Are these to validate the output of the agents?
If they’re just there to prevent regressions in your code, the size of a test suite is not usually a selling point. In particular, for a product this complicated, 193 is a small number of tests, which either means each test does a lot (probably too much) or you’re lacking coverage. Either way I wouldn’t advertise “193 tests”.
reply