Orchestrate teams of Claude Code sessions

2026-02-0517:49396226code.claude.com

Coordinate multiple Claude Code instances working together as a team, with shared tasks, inter-agent messaging, and centralized management.

Agent teams are experimental and disabled by default. Enable them by adding CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS to your settings.json or environment. Agent teams have known limitations around session resumption, task coordination, and shutdown behavior.

Agent teams let you coordinate multiple Claude Code instances working together. One session acts as the team lead, coordinating work, assigning tasks, and synthesizing results. Teammates work independently, each in its own context window, and communicate directly with each other. Unlike subagents, which run within a single session and can only report back to the main agent, you can also interact with individual teammates directly without going through the lead. This page covers: Agent teams are most effective for tasks where parallel exploration adds real value. See use case examples for full scenarios. The strongest use cases are:
  • Research and review: multiple teammates can investigate different aspects of a problem simultaneously, then share and challenge each other’s findings
  • New modules or features: teammates can each own a separate piece without stepping on each other
  • Debugging with competing hypotheses: teammates test different theories in parallel and converge on the answer faster
  • Cross-layer coordination: changes that span frontend, backend, and tests, each owned by a different teammate
Agent teams add coordination overhead and use significantly more tokens than a single session. They work best when teammates can operate independently. For sequential tasks, same-file edits, or work with many dependencies, a single session or subagents are more effective. Both agent teams and subagents let you parallelize work, but they operate differently. Choose based on whether your workers need to communicate with each other:
SubagentsAgent teams
ContextOwn context window; results return to the callerOwn context window; fully independent
CommunicationReport results back to the main agent onlyTeammates message each other directly
CoordinationMain agent manages all workShared task list with self-coordination
Best forFocused tasks where only the result mattersComplex work requiring discussion and collaboration
Token costLower: results summarized back to main contextHigher: each teammate is a separate Claude instance
Use subagents when you need quick, focused workers that report back. Use agent teams when teammates need to share findings, challenge each other, and coordinate on their own. Agent teams are disabled by default. Enable them by setting the CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS environment variable to 1, either in your shell environment or through settings.json:
{
 "env": {
 "CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS": "1"
 }
}
After enabling agent teams, tell Claude to create an agent team and describe the task and the team structure you want in natural language. Claude creates the team, spawns teammates, and coordinates work based on your prompt. This example works well because the three roles are independent and can explore the problem without waiting on each other:
I'm designing a CLI tool that helps developers track TODO comments across
their codebase. Create an agent team to explore this from different angles: one
teammate on UX, one on technical architecture, one playing devil's advocate.
From there, Claude creates a team with a shared task list, spawns teammates for each perspective, has them explore the problem, synthesizes findings, and attempts to clean up the team when finished. The lead’s terminal lists all teammates and what they’re working on. Use Shift+Up/Down to select a teammate and message them directly. If you want each teammate in its own split pane, see Choose a display mode. Tell the lead what you want in natural language. It handles team coordination, task assignment, and delegation based on your instructions. Agent teams support two display modes:
  • In-process: all teammates run inside your main terminal. Use Shift+Up/Down to select a teammate and type to message them directly. Works in any terminal, no extra setup required.
  • Split panes: each teammate gets its own pane. You can see everyone’s output at once and click into a pane to interact directly. Requires tmux, or iTerm2.

tmux has known limitations on certain operating systems and traditionally works best on macOS. Using tmux -CC in iTerm2 is the suggested entrypoint into tmux.

The default is "auto", which uses split panes if you’re already running inside a tmux session, and in-process otherwise. The "tmux" setting enables split-pane mode and auto-detects whether to use tmux or iTerm2 based on your terminal. To override, set teammateMode in your settings.json:
{
 "teammateMode": "in-process"
}
To force in-process mode for a single session, pass it as a flag:
claude --teammate-mode in-process
Split-pane mode requires either tmux or iTerm2 with the it2 CLI. To install manually:
  • tmux: install through your system’s package manager. See the tmux wiki for platform-specific instructions.
  • iTerm2: install the it2 CLI, then enable the Python API in iTerm2 → Settings → General → Magic → Enable Python API.
Claude decides the number of teammates to spawn based on your task, or you can specify exactly what you want:
Create a team with 4 teammates to refactor these modules in parallel.
Use Sonnet for each teammate.
For complex or risky tasks, you can require teammates to plan before implementing. The teammate works in read-only plan mode until the lead approves their approach:
Spawn an architect teammate to refactor the authentication module.
Require plan approval before they make any changes.
When a teammate finishes planning, it sends a plan approval request to the lead. The lead reviews the plan and either approves it or rejects it with feedback. If rejected, the teammate stays in plan mode, revises based on the feedback, and resubmits. Once approved, the teammate exits plan mode and begins implementation. The lead makes approval decisions autonomously. To influence the lead’s judgment, give it criteria in your prompt, such as “only approve plans that include test coverage” or “reject plans that modify the database schema.” Without delegate mode, the lead sometimes starts implementing tasks itself instead of waiting for teammates. Delegate mode prevents this by restricting the lead to coordination-only tools: spawning, messaging, shutting down teammates, and managing tasks. This is useful when you want the lead to focus entirely on orchestration, such as breaking down work, assigning tasks, and synthesizing results, without touching code directly. To enable it, start a team first, then press Shift+Tab to cycle into delegate mode. Each teammate is a full, independent Claude Code session. You can message any teammate directly to give additional instructions, ask follow-up questions, or redirect their approach.
  • In-process mode: use Shift+Up/Down to select a teammate, then type to send them a message. Press Enter to view a teammate’s session, then Escape to interrupt their current turn. Press Ctrl+T to toggle the task list.
  • Split-pane mode: click into a teammate’s pane to interact with their session directly. Each teammate has a full view of their own terminal.
The shared task list coordinates work across the team. The lead creates tasks and teammates work through them. Tasks have three states: pending, in progress, and completed. Tasks can also depend on other tasks: a pending task with unresolved dependencies cannot be claimed until those dependencies are completed. The lead can assign tasks explicitly, or teammates can self-claim:
  • Lead assigns: tell the lead which task to give to which teammate
  • Self-claim: after finishing a task, a teammate picks up the next unassigned, unblocked task on its own
Task claiming uses file locking to prevent race conditions when multiple teammates try to claim the same task simultaneously. To gracefully end a teammate’s session:
Ask the researcher teammate to shut down
The lead sends a shutdown request. The teammate can approve, exiting gracefully, or reject with an explanation. When you’re done, ask the lead to clean up:
This removes the shared team resources. When the lead runs cleanup, it checks for active teammates and fails if any are still running, so shut them down first.

Always use the lead to clean up. Teammates should not run cleanup because their team context may not resolve correctly, potentially leaving resources in an inconsistent state.

This section covers the architecture and mechanics behind agent teams. If you want to start using them, see Control your agent team above. There are two ways agent teams get started:
  • You request a team: give Claude a task that benefits from parallel work and explicitly ask for an agent team. Claude creates one based on your instructions.
  • Claude proposes a team: if Claude determines your task would benefit from parallel work, it may suggest creating a team. You confirm before it proceeds.
In both cases, you stay in control. Claude won’t create a team without your approval. An agent team consists of:
ComponentRole
Team leadThe main Claude Code session that creates the team, spawns teammates, and coordinates work
TeammatesSeparate Claude Code instances that each work on assigned tasks
Task listShared list of work items that teammates claim and complete
MailboxMessaging system for communication between agents
See Choose a display mode for display configuration options. Teammate messages arrive at the lead automatically. The system manages task dependencies automatically. When a teammate completes a task that other tasks depend on, blocked tasks unblock without manual intervention. Teams and tasks are stored locally:
  • Team config: ~/.claude/teams/{team-name}/config.json
  • Task list: ~/.claude/tasks/{team-name}/
The team config contains a members array with each teammate’s name, agent ID, and agent type. Teammates can read this file to discover other team members. Teammates start with the lead’s permission settings. If the lead runs with --dangerously-skip-permissions, all teammates do too. After spawning, you can change individual teammate modes, but you can’t set per-teammate modes at spawn time. Each teammate has its own context window. When spawned, a teammate loads the same project context as a regular session: CLAUDE.md, MCP servers, and skills. It also receives the spawn prompt from the lead. The lead’s conversation history does not carry over. How teammates share information:
  • Automatic message delivery: when teammates send messages, they’re delivered automatically to recipients. The lead doesn’t need to poll for updates.
  • Idle notifications: when a teammate finishes and stops, they automatically notify the lead.
  • Shared task list: all agents can see task status and claim available work.
Teammate messaging:
  • message: send a message to one specific teammate
  • broadcast: send to all teammates simultaneously. Use sparingly, as costs scale with team size.
Agent teams use significantly more tokens than a single session. Each teammate has its own context window, and token usage scales with the number of active teammates. For research, review, and new feature work, the extra tokens are usually worthwhile. For routine tasks, a single session is more cost-effective. See agent team token costs for usage guidance. These examples show how agent teams handle tasks where parallel exploration adds value. A single reviewer tends to gravitate toward one type of issue at a time. Splitting review criteria into independent domains means security, performance, and test coverage all get thorough attention simultaneously. The prompt assigns each teammate a distinct lens so they don’t overlap:
Create an agent team to review PR #142. Spawn three reviewers:
- One focused on security implications
- One checking performance impact
- One validating test coverage
Have them each review and report findings.
Each reviewer works from the same PR but applies a different filter. The lead synthesizes findings across all three after they finish. When the root cause is unclear, a single agent tends to find one plausible explanation and stop looking. The prompt fights this by making teammates explicitly adversarial: each one’s job is not only to investigate its own theory but to challenge the others’.
Users report the app exits after one message instead of staying connected.
Spawn 5 agent teammates to investigate different hypotheses. Have them talk to
each other to try to disprove each other's theories, like a scientific
debate. Update the findings doc with whatever consensus emerges.
The debate structure is the key mechanism here. Sequential investigation suffers from anchoring: once one theory is explored, subsequent investigation is biased toward it. With multiple independent investigators actively trying to disprove each other, the theory that survives is much more likely to be the actual root cause. Teammates load project context automatically, including CLAUDE.md, MCP servers, and skills, but they don’t inherit the lead’s conversation history. See Context and communication for details. Include task-specific details in the spawn prompt:
Spawn a security reviewer teammate with the prompt: "Review the authentication module
at src/auth/ for security vulnerabilities. Focus on token handling, session
management, and input validation. The app uses JWT tokens stored in
httpOnly cookies. Report any issues with severity ratings."
  • Too small: coordination overhead exceeds the benefit
  • Too large: teammates work too long without check-ins, increasing risk of wasted effort
  • Just right: self-contained units that produce a clear deliverable, such as a function, a test file, or a review

The lead breaks work into tasks and assigns them to teammates automatically. If it isn’t creating enough tasks, ask it to split the work into smaller pieces. Having 5-6 tasks per teammate keeps everyone productive and lets the lead reassign work if someone gets stuck.

Sometimes the lead starts implementing tasks itself instead of waiting for teammates. If you notice this:
Wait for your teammates to complete their tasks before proceeding
If you’re new to agent teams, start with tasks that have clear boundaries and don’t require writing code: reviewing a PR, researching a library, or investigating a bug. These tasks show the value of parallel exploration without the coordination challenges that come with parallel implementation. Two teammates editing the same file leads to overwrites. Break the work so each teammate owns a different set of files. Check in on teammates’ progress, redirect approaches that aren’t working, and synthesize findings as they come in. Letting a team run unattended for too long increases the risk of wasted effort. If teammates aren’t appearing after you ask Claude to create a team:
  • In in-process mode, teammates may already be running but not visible. Press Shift+Down to cycle through active teammates.
  • Check that the task you gave Claude was complex enough to warrant a team. Claude decides whether to spawn teammates based on the task.
  • If you explicitly requested split panes, ensure tmux is installed and available in your PATH:
  • For iTerm2, verify the it2 CLI is installed and the Python API is enabled in iTerm2 preferences.
Teammate permission requests bubble up to the lead, which can create friction. Pre-approve common operations in your permission settings before spawning teammates to reduce interruptions. Teammates may stop after encountering errors instead of recovering. Check their output using Shift+Up/Down in in-process mode or by clicking the pane in split mode, then either:
  • Give them additional instructions directly
  • Spawn a replacement teammate to continue the work
The lead may decide the team is finished before all tasks are actually complete. If this happens, tell it to keep going. You can also tell the lead to wait for teammates to finish before proceeding if it starts doing work instead of delegating. If a tmux session persists after the team ends, it may not have been fully cleaned up. List sessions and kill the one created by the team:
tmux ls
tmux kill-session -t <session-name>
Agent teams are experimental. Current limitations to be aware of:
  • No session resumption with in-process teammates: /resume and /rewind do not restore in-process teammates. After resuming a session, the lead may attempt to message teammates that no longer exist. If this happens, tell the lead to spawn new teammates.
  • Task status can lag: teammates sometimes fail to mark tasks as completed, which blocks dependent tasks. If a task appears stuck, check whether the work is actually done and update the task status manually or tell the lead to nudge the teammate.
  • Shutdown can be slow: teammates finish their current request or tool call before shutting down, which can take time.
  • One team per session: a lead can only manage one team at a time. Clean up the current team before starting a new one.
  • No nested teams: teammates cannot spawn their own teams or teammates. Only the lead can manage the team.
  • Lead is fixed: the session that creates the team is the lead for its lifetime. You can’t promote a teammate to lead or transfer leadership.
  • Permissions set at spawn: all teammates start with the lead’s permission mode. You can change individual teammate modes after spawning, but you can’t set per-teammate modes at spawn time.
  • Split panes require tmux or iTerm2: the default in-process mode works in any terminal. Split-pane mode isn’t supported in VS Code’s integrated terminal, Windows Terminal, or Ghostty.

CLAUDE.md works normally: teammates read CLAUDE.md files from their working directory. Use this to provide project-specific guidance to all teammates.

Explore related approaches for parallel work and delegation:
  • Lightweight delegation: subagents spawn helper agents for research or verification within your session, better for tasks that don’t need inter-agent coordination
  • Manual parallel sessions: Git worktrees let you run multiple Claude Code sessions yourself without automated team coordination
  • Compare approaches: see the subagent vs agent team comparison for a side-by-side breakdown

Read the original article

Comments

  • By mcintyre1994 2026-02-0520:25

    I’ve been mostly holding off on learning any of the tools that do this because it seemed so obvious that it’ll be built natively. Will definitely give this a go at some point!

  • By pronik 2026-02-0519:208 reply

    To the folks comparing this to GasTown: keep in mind that Steve Yegge explicitely pitched agent orchestrators to among others Anthropic months ago:

    > I went to senior folks at companies like Temporal and Anthropic, telling them they should build an agent orchestrator, that Claude Code is just a building block, and it’s going to be all about AI workflows and “Kubernetes for agents”. I went up onstage at multiple events and described my vision for the orchestrator. I went everywhere, to everyone. (from "Welcome to Gas Town" https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...)

    That Anthropic releases Agent Teams now (as rumored a couple of weeks back), after they've already adopted a tiny bit of beads in form of Tasks) means that either they've been building them already back when Steve pitched orchestrators or they've decided that he's been right and it's time to scale the agents. Or they've arrived at the same conclusions independently -- it won't matter in the larger scale of things. I think Steve greately appreciates it existing; if anything, this is a validation of his vision. We'll probably be herding polecats in a couple of months officially.

    • By mohsen1 2026-02-0520:332 reply

      It's not like he was the only one who came up with this idea. I built something like that without knowing about GasTown or Beeds. It's just an obvious next step

      https://github.com/mohsen1/claude-code-orchestrator

      • By gbnwl 2026-02-0522:001 reply

        I also share your confusion about him somehow managing to dominate credit in this space, when it doesn't even seem like Gastown ended up being very effective as a tool relative to its insane token usage. Everyone who's used an agentic tool for longer than a day will have had the natural desire for them to communicate and coordinate across context windows effectively. I'm guessing he just wrote the punchiest article about it and left an impression on people who had hitherto been ignoring the space entirely.

      • By behnamoh 2026-02-0521:501 reply

        Exactly! I built something similar. These are such low hanging fruit ideas that no one company/person should be credited for coming up with them.

        • By yks 2026-02-063:351 reply

          Seriously, I thought that was what langchain was for back in 2023.

          • By simianwords 2026-02-064:272 reply

            Seriously, what is langchain? It’s so completely useless. Clearly none of the new agents care about it or need it. Irrelevant.

            • By yks 2026-02-0614:25

              Agree, langchain was useless then and completely irrelevant now, but the idea that we need to orchestrate different LLM loops is extremely obvious.

            • By yieldcrv 2026-02-069:43

              > what is langchain?

              and incantation you put on your resume to double your salary for a few months before the company you jumped ship to gets obsoleted by the foundational model

    • By isoprophlex 2026-02-0519:262 reply

      There seems to be a lot of convergent evolution happening in the space. Days before the gas town hype hit, I made a (less baroque, less manic) "agent team" setup: a shell script to kick off a ralph wiggum loop, and CLAUDE-MESSAGE-BUS.md for inter-ralph communication (Thread safety was hacked into this with a .claude.lock file).

      The main claude instance is instructed to launch as many ralph loops as it wants, in screen sessions. It is told to sleep for a certain amount of time to periodically keep track of their progress.

      It worked reasonably well, but I don't prefer this way of working... yet. Right now I can't write spec (or meta-spec) files quick enough to saturate the agent loops, and I can't QA their output well enough... mostly a me thing, i guess?

      • By CuriouslyC 2026-02-0520:37

        Not a you thing. Fancy orchestration is mostly a waste, validation is the bottleneck. You can do E2E tests and all sorts of analytic guardrails but you need to make sure the functionality matches intent rather than just being "functional" which is still a slow analog process.

      • By pronik 2026-02-0519:51

        > Right now I can't write spec (or meta-spec) files quick enough to saturate the agent loops, and I can't QA their output well enough... mostly a me thing, i guess?

        Same for me, however, the velocity of the whole field is astonishing and things change as we get used to them. We are not talking that much about hallucinating anymore, just 4-5 months ago you couldn't trust coding agents with extracting functionality to a separate file without typos, now splitting Git commits works almost without a hinch. The more we get used to agents getting certain things right 100% of the time, the more we'll trust them. There are many many things that I know I won't get right, but I'm absolutely sure my agent will. As soon as we start trusting e.g. a QA agent to do his job, our "project management" velocity will increase too.

        Interestingly enough, the infamous "bowling score card" text on how XP works, has demonstrated inherently agentic behaviour in more way than one (they just didn't know what "extreme" was back then). You were supposed to implement a failing test and then implement just enough functionality for this test to not fail anymore, even if the intended functionality was broader -- which is exactly what agents reliably do in a loop. Also, you were supposed to be pair-driving a single machine, which has been incomprehensible to me for almost decades -- after all, every person has their own shortcuts, hardware, IDEs, window managers and what not. Turns out, all you need is a centralized server running a "team manager agent" and multiple developers talking to him to craft software fast (see tmux requirement in Gas Town).

    • By bonesss 2026-02-0519:462 reply

      Compare both approaches to mature actor frameworks and they don’t seem to be breaking much ice. These kinds of supervisor trees and hierarchies aren’t new for actor based systems and they’re obvious applications of LLM agents working in concert.

      The fact that Anthropic and OpenAI have been going on this long without such orchestration, considering the unavoidable issues of context windows and unreliable self-validation, without matching the basic system maturity you get from a default Akka installation shows us that these leading LLM providers (with more money, tokens, deals, access, and better employees than any of us), are learning in real time. Big chunks of the next gen hype machine wunder-agents are fully realizable with cron and basic actor based scripting. Deterministically, write once run forever, no subscription needed.

      Kubernetes for agents is, speaking as a krappy kubernetes admin, not some leap, it’s how I’ve been wiring my local doom-coding agents together. I have a hypothesis that people at Google (who are pretty ok with kubernetes and maybe some LLM stuff), have been there for a minute too.

      Good to see them building this out, excited to see whether LLM cluster failures multiply (like repeating bad photocopies), or nullify (“sorry Dave, but we’re not going to help build another Facebook, we’re not supposed to harm humanity and also PHP, so… no.”).

      • By ttoinou 2026-02-0519:554 reply

        If it was so obvious and easy, why didn't we have this a year ago ? Models were mature enough back then to make this work

        • By bcrosby95 2026-02-0521:17

          The high level idea is obvious but doing it is not easy. "Maybe agents should work in teams like humans with different roles and responsibilities and be optimized for those" isn't exactly mind bending. I experimented with it too when LLM coding became a thing.

          As usual, the hard part is the actual doing and producing a usable product.

        • By CuriouslyC 2026-02-0520:351 reply

          Orchestration definitely wasn't possible a year ago, the only tool that even produced decent results that far back was Aider, it wasn't fully agentic, and it didn't really shine until Gemini 2.5 03-25.

          The truth is that people are doing experiments on most of this stuff, and a lot of them are even writing about it, but most of the time you don't see that writing (or the projects that get made) unless someone with an audience already (like Steve Yegge) makes it.

          • By ttoinou 2026-02-0520:52

            Roo Code in VSCode was working fine a year ago, even back in November 2024 with Sonnet 3.5 or 3.7

        • By lossolo 2026-02-0520:57

          Because gathering training data and doing post-training takes time. I agree with OP that this is the obvious next step given context length limitations. Humans work the same way in organizations, you have different people specializing in different things because everyone has a limited "context length".

        • By troupo 2026-02-0523:07

          Because they are not good engineers [1]

          Also, because they are stuck in a language and an ecosystem that cannot reliably build supervisors, hierarchies of processes etc. You need Erlang/Elixir for that. Or similar implementations like Akka that they mention.

          [1] Yes, they claim their AI-written slop in Claude Code is "a tiny game engine" that takes 16ms to output a couple of hundred of characters on screen: https://x.com/trq212/status/2014051501786931427

      • By ruined 2026-02-0519:572 reply

        what mature actor frameworks do you recommend?

        • By jghn 2026-02-0520:00

          They did mention Akka in their post, so I would assume that's one of them.

        • By troupo 2026-02-0523:08

          Elixir/Erlang. It's table stakes for them.

    • By tyre 2026-02-0523:221 reply

      Sorry, are you saying that engineers at Anthropic who work on coding models every day hadn’t thought of multiple of them working together until someone else suggested it?

      I remember having conversations about this when the first ChatGPT launched and I don’t work at an AI company.

      • By astrange 2026-02-061:30

        Claude Code has already had subagent support. Mostly because you have to do very aggressive context window management with Claude or it gets distracted.

    • By yieldcrv 2026-02-0610:46

      Why is Yegge so.... loud?

      Like, who cares? Judging from his blog recount of this it doesn't seem like anybody actually does. He's an unnecessarily loud and enthused engineer inserting himself into AI conversations instead of just playing office politics to join the AI automation effort inside of a big corporation?

      "wow he was yelling about agent orchestration in March 2025", I was about 5 months behind him, the company I was working for had its now seemingly obligatory "oh fuck, hackathon" back in August 2025

      and we all came to the same conclusions. conferences had everyone having the same conclusion, I went to the local AWS Invent, all the panels from AWS employees and Developer Relations guys were about that

      it stands to reason that any company working on foundational models and an agentic coding framework would also have talent thinking about that sooner than the rest of us

      so why does Yegge want all of this attention and think its important at all, it seems like it would have been a waste of energy to bother with, like in advance everything should have been able to know that. "Anthropic! what are you doing! listen to meeeehhhh let me innnn!"

      doesn't make sense, and gastown's branding is further unhinged goofiness

      yeah I can't really play the attribution games on this one, can't really get behind who cares. I'm glad its available in a more benign format now

    • By segmondy 2026-02-0519:51

      This is nothing new, folks have been doing this for since 2023. Lots of paper on arxiv and lots of code in github with implementation of multiagents.

      ... the "limit" were agents were not as smart then, context window was much smaller and RLVR wasn't a thing so agents were trained for just function calling, but not agent calling/coordination.

      we have been doing it since then, the difference really is that the models have gotten really smart and good to handle it.

    • By aaaalone 2026-02-0519:40

      Honestly this is one of plenty ideas I also have.

      But this shows how much stuff is still to do in the ai space

    • By dingnuts 2026-02-0519:39

      [dead]

  • By GoatOfAplomb 2026-02-0519:273 reply

    I wonder if my $20/mo subscription will last 10 minutes.

    • By mohsen1 2026-02-0520:342 reply

      At this point, if you're paying out of pocket you should use Kimi or GLM for it to make sense

      • By andai 2026-02-060:00

        GLM is OK (haven't used it heavily but seems alright so far), a bit slow with ZAI's coding plan, amazingly fast on Cerebras but their coding plan is sold out.

        Haven't tried Kimi, hear good things.

      • By bluerooibos 2026-02-0522:251 reply

        These are super slow to run locally, though, unless you've got some great hardware - right?

        At least, my M1 Pro seems to struggle and take forever using them via Ollama.

    • By tclancy 2026-02-0520:32

      Ah ok, same. I keep wondering about how this would ever accomplish anything.

    • By simlevesque 2026-02-0519:57

      I've had good results with Haiku for certain tasks.

HackerNews