loading
Loading.loading
Loading.Two things: isolation and orchestration. Give each agent its own git worktree (a separate checkout) so their changes never overwrite each other mid-flight, and a coordination layer that assigns ownership so two agents don't claim the same work. Conflicts then surface at merge time, behind a review gate, where they're cheap to resolve. The jump from one agent to a fleet is mostly this coordination, not a better prompt or a bigger model.
With one agent there's no collision problem. With five working in parallel on different parts of the codebase, the whole game is who owns what, in what order, how work merges, and what happens when two disagree. That's an orchestration problem seats don't solve.
Each agent works in its own checkout on its own branch, so two agents editing nearby code never see each other's half-finished changes. Their work only meets at merge, on a branch, behind review. This one practice removes an entire class of parallel-work corruption.
A coordination layer assigns work so agents don't duplicate or collide, and a review gate decides what lands. We built our own tooling for this because off-the-shelf single-agent tools don't address coordination at all.
or have us build it — same capability, the other door