Hacker News
points by brkomir 2 days ago | 0 comments
I usually run 4-5 claude sessions in parallel on the same branch, each with its own working plan or work item. They coordinate almost in real time, leaving messages in a shared queue and picking them up every 30 seconds. What keeps them from stepping over each other's work is a commit script that allows only staged changes from one session to be committed at a time.

Where it actually pays off to have separate sessions is the code review. Every code change that affects how the app behaves is checked by a session that didn't write the change. Some numbers: 4,454 verdicts on 4,471 commits since September. About four in five first reviews found something, and about half asked for changes.

[–] cgio 2 days ago
They always find something. I am at the level where in a review I allow the reviewer to give me the most important item only and explain its impact.
[–] leobg 1 day ago
> They coordinate almost in real time, leaving messages in a shared queue and picking them up every 30 seconds. What keeps them from stepping over each other's work is a commit script that allows only staged changes from one session to be committed at a time.

You wrote that as a skill or hook or something? I do notice that sessions have knowledge of other sessions, but what you’re describing sounds more formalized and enforced.

[–] UncleOxidant 2 days ago
Interesting. I'd like to have something where I'm primarily running a local model - Qwen3.8-Flash-Next - and then have it consult with a frontier model as an "advisor" - like how you can setup an advisor model in Claude code.