8 pointsby bredren2 hours ago3 comments
  • reacharavindh8 minutes ago
    Why though? They are a cheap way to do something without a whole wall of tokens from the said thing polluting the main context…

    One would think it is actually a useful thing both for the users and the LLM providers that are compute constrained at the moment..

  • jauntywundrkindan hour ago
    obviously overriding user intent isn't great. it's probably something you can argue about it with, put in your AGENTS.md oh right oops Anthropic refuses to play well CLAUDE.md in strong letters to insist on.

    but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore! they go off and do a bunch of duplicate research, then come back and deliver a cheap facimile of the information the main agent often already knew.

    that's definitely not always the case, but i feel like so so so often the main agent would be better just doing the research itself, seeing the things. it can sometimes mean wasting some context on dead-ends. which, in an open model where thinking is actually captured and editable in the api, is not a huge deal. but i don't think claude is capable of the same history editing, afaik, in part probably because it won't actually give you it's thinking trails.

    • TacticalCoder29 minutes ago
      > ... but i have to say i'm not super shocked or surprised. simply from the perspective of: i don't think subagents are super great to use anymore

      The author of the pi.dev minimal harness doesn't like subagents. It's interesting to see that now Anthropic hardcodes instructions trying to steer away from subagents.

      It could be time for those still believing in those to ponder why that is.