I was really excited to try this but this does NOT work the way I expected. I wanted a simple git worktree manager for my existing, already-checked-out repository. Instead, it requests Github permissions and clones the repo from Github. This is bad, because you need to run all the dependency installs, etc. for every workspace before being able to test anything. In other words it's like Codex or Cursor Background Agents, except worse, because it's on your machine. The reason I don't use Codex or Background Agents is because my project has way too many dependencies and would take way too long (and too complicated) to install everything required to have an isolated running instance, plus there would be DNS conflicts, external API conflicts, among other issues.
What I do want is simple git worktree management for an already-checked-out repo on my machine, no Github permissions or dependency re-installation (copying node_modules, etc.).
I'm the only user at the moment, and I really enjoy the workflow. I run about four claude-codes at once this way. It's a little underbaked but I think this is the way a lot of people are going to go. Seems like the 'par' tool in a sibling comment is a similar approach.
Containers do make things easier, especially since agents can see the log output of any service super easily. To do the same thing outside a container you need to send logs somewhere the agent can see.
Hey, you might be interested in my project Plandex[1] which uses a shadow git repo approach to keep changes separate until you approve them. It solves the same problem as worktrees.
I tried Crystal for the first time today and really enjoyed it. It’s a bit rough around the edges but it’s usable and notably it Does One Thing Really Well. All I wanted was a simple way to run a bunch of Claude codes in parallel and isolation and it does exactly that. No more, no less. No opinionation about how I organize my code, no custom config files I have to think about and manage, just simple work isolation workflow with a GUI.
I tried out git worktrees recently and while they do what's on the tin, I really didn't like them as much as I thought I would. I actually like the way cursor does it despite the fact that it is a VM - I wish I could have their same UI/UX but with local worktrees.
The git worktrees feature has first garnered public attention since anthropic mentioned it in its claude code good practices. Until then it was just one of these obscure git features most professionals have never heard of.
Now all these agents and claude code wrappers are trying to make use of git worktrees - but in all honesty - it's overcomplicating most workflows more than being of a real use for agentic coding. The bottleneck was - for most workflows - never the ai not being able to write 10 different poc of my feature simultaneously - but the human factor - needing to carefully review what ai produced and still steering ai in the right direction. git worktrees doesn't help solve any of these problems. it just adds an unnecessary layer on top.
Yes, the bottleneck is going to still be human review. But with only a single Claude Code (or Cursor), I spent a lot of time (a couple minutes at a time) waiting for the agent to run through its loop completing what I asked it to do. In this time I found I was naturally switching context, but not always productively (checking slack, email, whatever). I called it "agent lag" time.
Now with these worktrees tools, I can easily bounce between tasks I have the agents working on during these natural lulls. Overall I'm able to get more done and spend my time more efficiently.
Also, Cursor has had the option to run multiple agents for a while (in tabs), but I always found it cumbersome because all the agents are operating on the same git checkout, so you have to take special care for them not to conflict with each other. Worktrees completely solve that problem.
Babysitting one process, but giving it all of my attention[1] can lead to rapid progress.
Pushing forward multiple efforts simultaneously can lead to rapid progress if code is largely unrelated and you keep a sharp eye on branching and commits.
However, it’s remarkably easy to make a mistake and be enamored by how well the AI can use git to fix your mistake.
But the cost ends up being adherence to it, specification or architecture, or being distracted into scope creep.
The new scope might be useful for factoring, but that is also the kind of thing that interfere with your Main processor trying to handle.
And it’s remarkably easy to get lost in the state when you have to manage validation well.
The more mature the project and more intense the expectation of scm hygiene, the more punitive small mistakes can become.
It is not really a problem in my process prior to Claude code, which was almost entirely turned based chat.
I still have configured fairly complex and detailed session workflows to preserve state amidst the regular threat of auto compact.
Even I even have documentation, describing a plan to migrate into git worktrees myself, but haven’t been able to justify the move, as I continue to learn to be productive with a single main session focus.
[1] I don’t know if there is such a thing as constant focus on a complex genetic programming effort because of the delays involved. You can stare at the funny verbs anthropic picks while the tokens go brrrr for only so long.
Yes I had a similar experience. the thing that tripped me up with git worktrees, which is maybe obvious in retrospect, is that they don’t include things that are not tracked by git - e.g. .env.development.local
So starting a new worktree requires additional setup and isn’t as simple as just checking out a new branch
Sorry about that! We’re working on making this more intuitive.
Internally our workflow looks like this:
- we have a script that sets up a repo — copies env variables, runs pnpm i, inits a db, etc
- we have a field in the repo settings called “setup script.” every time you make a new workspace, that script runs
Hopefully will be much improved over the next week or two!
But that is also the selling point of worktrees - I have them for multiple features I am working on, I just spin up services that I need for each feature separately, like databases, etc. How else are you going to isolate migrations, configuration changes, etc.
I'm working on a little wrapper that solves this problem. I have similar needs with .env files, and in my case running 'uv sync' to install dependencies. I linked it elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat the URL (autowt). It's definitely possible to make this workflow effective with some scripting.
check out https://github.com/dagger/container-use! it uses worktrees under the hood, but hides them from the user and agent. it basically gives you containers tracked by git branches and plugs into any MCP-compatible agent. you're then free to make your own worktrees from those branches, but you can also just use them in your normal checkout.
Hi, creator here. If you want to copy node_modules instead of reinstalling, you can click on the repo and add a setup script that does the copy. Sorry it’s a bit obscure—we’re working on making this easier!
Would love to discuss more what kind of testing setup you’re looking for, want to shoot me an email at jackson@melty.sh?
Also the working on PRs workflow seems broken - the local branch doesn't have the changes that are on the PR so I can't pick it up and continue working on it.
"This is bad, because you need to run all the dependency installs", you must be using Python or one of the other locally cached dependency language tookings. Is never understood why people wanto clone everything every time. Maven and its sibling use ~/.m2 so everything gets cached once. I ceinge every time I have to re-download the universe when I inevitably have to delete my venv and redo anything, what a waste of time and bandwidth and space.
I just tried Claude Squad this morning , the instructions to use and interface was very clunky . There also was no uninstall instructions or scripts , so I had to write one and uninstall it. Lame
How do you suggest simultaneous independent branches be worked on concurrently from a single repository copy, or is it that you would simply prefer the local work tree method of duplication? And, for example, how do you suggest the same node_modules be used if part of the task requires changing, removing, or updating dependencies? Additionally, how much time do you expect a developer to spend implementing this new system your suggesting across all platforms for the benefit of it taking you a bit less time, especially when pulling dependencies from a local caches as I’m sure you’re doing? Or are you making a suggestion that you plan to contribute?
I’m sure the authors would appreciate well-thought alternative suggestions and assistance.
So this is why Claude Code is so slow now. I am all for these but not at the cost of other more casual users. I never had to worry about Sonnet use but even that is not guaranteed. Forget Opus.
Right now the app uses GitHub's OAuth sign in (https://docs.github.com/en/apps/oauth-apps/building-oauth-ap...) which unfortunately doesn't allow for fine-grained permissions (it will only have access to organization code if you explicitly grant it)
. We're switching our sign-in to a GitHub App so we can make the permissions fine-grained.
Yeah, it’s not like this is a saas and you’d need back-end access to the repos. I suspect this is being run with business potential in mind. The OP would do better by making that clear. And if you are selling a self-hosted app, just charge a license fee. People on 100-200/month claude code subscription wouldn’t mind paying 10-30 bucks for this.
Who does your design? I absolutely love this aesthetic, both this product, and your site (chorus.sh). What is this even called? I went for a similar vibe with tinylogger.com, but def didn't have your skills to pull it off.
Hi, appreciate the note! I'm Julian, I do all the design at Melty. I try to design our software to be functional, visually subtle, and chromatically warm. I don't know that the aesthetic has a name, but I've spent a lot of time studying manuscripts from the early middle ages so that might have seeped in - the logo for Conductor is actually a variant of insular majuscule (you can see the ductus in the animation)
Ah thank you! Our designer is Julian Kelly (https://jfk.works). He's amazing, and worked on Messenger at Meta — a background which has been surprisingly helpful since everything we're working on is a spin on chatting.
I'm in the midst of modernizing a 1994 K&R C 32-bit codebase to 64-bit C23, as a museum piece: the computer algebra system Macaulay that I coauthored, since replaced by Macaulay 2.
The horror!
On macOS my environment is Sublime Text as editor, iTerm as terminal. I open two full screen iTerm windows of four panes each, start Claude Code Opus 4 and type "just task" in each pane. CLAUDE.md tells the session to run this justfile command and follow the directions, which generally include instructions to continue by doing "just task" again. Each session may edit its <file>.c and <file>.h but not shared headers; if it has a problem with this I touch STOP in the task directory, the other sessions eventually are told to wait, and then the trouble child session can edit what it wants.
I'm sure in a few years AI will read and fix my 57 C file code base all at once, but for now this workflow has proved invaluable.
The irony? This is the dumbest parallel task manager imaginable yet it works. And our code base has a similar feel: The storage management is a set of fixed sized stacks that outperformed malloc() by 4x back in the day. Etc. Etc.
I learned this gift from my Dad. He devised the Bayer filter for digital photography back in 1974, it looks like ten minutes work (it wasn't) but we're still using it.
Out of curiosity, ~how many lines of C in all is the C you're refactoring?
Reason I ask is I have gotten outstanding results from gemini pro 2.5, which has a very large context.
It already accepts very large individual messages, however if the code base is still too big for a single message, it is possible to send it all in multiple messages and still have the model keep it all in context.
For large, system wide refactors, this can provide planning that claude code can't or won't do efficiently.
Sometimes, I'll have claude code come up with a plan, feed all the related code to gemini, and then provide claude code gemeni's improved plan.
Then after the work is done, have gemeni validate the implementation.
I've looked a bit into automation around this but haven't picked something yet.
If anyone has a solid workflow for this already, I'm all ears.
- I switch in between planning and execution in the middle of the conversation using Terminal a lot, it would be nice to have it here as well rather than defining how I want Claude to think in advance.
- Entering messages when the agents can result in task lists to save time.
I’m also experimenting different UX with CC, here is Claude Code running in Slack if anybody is interested. https://peerbot.ai
For me, getting Claude Code working properly two days in a row (12 -14 hours per day) is still a challenge.
Let it running in parallel "unwatched" will end up with nothing but a pile of code that will have to be re-written.
It was not that way at the beginning, when I started in May 24th (2 days post Sonnet/Opus 4 announcement), however, last 2 - 3 weeks, they've tweaked they system substantially (I mean I have no other explanation) and its behavior is despicable.
I have see a few on X complaining the same (along with far more about GPT o3 and 4o) but the culture of "opaque transparency" in the AI industry left us with nothing but guesses.
FWIW, this has been the way of working with AI products since the beginning. For example, chatgpt has waxed and waned even without model updates due to how the context gearing behind the web interface.
You can see in various subreddits the spikes in complaints--and there is definitely one in week(s) on Claude Code.
I generally take this as a sign of needing to get more skilled at context control and validation. And that by doing so, you'll be in only a better place once the product you're relying returns to baseline or leaps ahead again.
thanks.
I suspect those tuning take place in order to maintain cost/experience level, that is, keeping a "good enough" product while cutting cost of inference.
I also suspect it is tuned for ultimate experience upon release to grade well on benchmarks and online reports, then tuned back to a level they can bear as they burn investors money.
the need is clear, I am just expecting transparency.
This is very useful! I think the interfaces around models being used in an async manner will look very different than the synchronous chat UIs we are today. Claude Code is the first real “agent” that is providing true economic value, and there’s so much low hanging fruit in making the interfaces far better.
That works when you just do it once. Where you can run into problems is when you do that twice. One instance might change a file one way, and the other might change it in a conflicting way, then you have two Claudes getting confused about the state of that file and it gets messy. You can solve this by checking out multiple copies of your repo and having only one instance of Claude working per copy. This app seems like it just provides you with a nice UI for doing that.
Yes that's how I do Claude code manually, git branch per terminal window, and very rarely multiple agents on the same branch
It mostly works, except we don't have a clean flow for docker: shared system daemon & repository means need to manually tag & run by branch/project (docker compose -p ...), which is friction for the LLM and even more setup than we want
As a heavy multi session Claude Code user, this may be what finally converts me to cloud IDEs...
I've been looking for a tool like this, that lets Claude operate on multiple repos. I work on a project that has frontend/packages and backend (separate repos instead of a monorepo for good reasons) and I often develop features that cross both repos. With the terminal I can clone both down into a directory and start Claude code there, but all the tools for background/multiplexing are always built around a single repo. Any chance I can get multi-repo tasks supported?
1. Place all your repos inside a parent directory and name them accordingly (frontend, backend, devops, etc.)
2. Each repo has its own claude file.
3. The parent repo has a claude file that links these claude files.
I’ve had claude successfully navigate across these and uses services with back-end, setup terraform infra and then complete the implementation for the front-end.
Yes if I just run Claude Code it works fine. But I want to be able to use any of these multiplexing tools (eg Codex, Cursor Background Agents, this Conductor tool) in the same scenario.
Full read-write access required to all your Github account's repos. Not just code. Settings, deploy keys. The works. Full access to your organisation settings. Not a privacy policy in sight. Zero disclosure of data practices.
You are INSANE to authorize this app on anything other than throwaway code.
It will only have access to organization code if you explicitly grant it.
We're working on switching our sign-in to a GitHub App so we can make the permissions fine-grained.
Totally understand, but you're asking for the keys for the kingdom, without any data disclosure or privacy policy. Even if you switch to fine-grain permissions, the lack of any "and here are our commitments to handling or accessing your data" is (and should be) a show-stopper for anyone trying this out.
In case people aren't reading, here's the c+v of what Conductor gets access to currently:
--
This application will be able to read and write all public and private repository data. This includes the following:
Note: In addition to repository related resources, the repo scope also grants access to manage organization attributes and organization-owned resources including projects, invitations, team memberships and webhooks. This scope also grants the ability to manage projects owned by users.
I have been imagining something like this would be perfect for working with Claude Code. I tried a couple other apps but they seemed to change too much without providing enough value for that change. This feels like just a nice clean simple extension of how Claude code already works that solves my most common pain points in the workflow.
> It'd be great to change the default branch used for creating new workspaces.
Yeah you can actually change this now! If you click the repo name you can make changes to the "setup script". If you added `git checkout -b "branch name"` it would run that on every new workspace instance.
At the moment it's mostly Cursor or VS Code, but I was actually thinking of SourceTree. I'd like to look at the pending changes and manage the commits myself, and I could do that if I could add "open -a SourceTree ." as a custom command. I didn't see a place to edit a setup script, is that just on the filesystem?
I've often been running several claude code sessions across separate terminal tabs. Was a user of chorus.sh and excited to try another product from y'all! Congrats
Why would you store secrets in your dev environment?
Regarding the code, I don't believe it is a concern for most of the people, because they use 3rd party git repo anyway, which has exactly the same level of risk
Cool idea, and I'm definitely not in the target market (I'm a Linux user and also very hesitant to adopt proprietary tools to my important workflows), but something like this could be useful. Right now though it's pretty easy to run each in a different tmux window and check on it, but once I have about 3 or more running at a time it's very easy to forget about one and have it paused waiting for confirmation. A tool like this to add a dashboard of sorts would be nice. Definitely interesting to think about!
I noticed that I found Claude great for squashing bugs/issues, and started using worktrees but saw similar problems as you described, so I enlisted Claude and wrote https://github.com/Someblueman/hydra to solve for this very issue, keeping (or rather trying) it in pure shell for personal portability and gives me a playground for AI driven development
I am smart, capable, and have a lot of programming experience, and can just about manage to stay focused enough to properly review the output of a single Claude agent.
I'm surprised people are running multiple agents, and are able to check their outputs diligently.
Would be cool if I can use this with opencode, Amazon Q or whatever. I reckon the logic would be quite similar. Seen a few of these tools but they're all Claude-centric.
I was really excited to try this but this does NOT work the way I expected. I wanted a simple git worktree manager for my existing, already-checked-out repository. Instead, it requests Github permissions and clones the repo from Github. This is bad, because you need to run all the dependency installs, etc. for every workspace before being able to test anything. In other words it's like Codex or Cursor Background Agents, except worse, because it's on your machine. The reason I don't use Codex or Background Agents is because my project has way too many dependencies and would take way too long (and too complicated) to install everything required to have an isolated running instance, plus there would be DNS conflicts, external API conflicts, among other issues.
What I do want is simple git worktree management for an already-checked-out repo on my machine, no Github permissions or dependency re-installation (copying node_modules, etc.).
I've been working on a tool for exactly this purpose: https://steveasleep.com/autowt/
I'm the only user at the moment, and I really enjoy the workflow. I run about four claude-codes at once this way. It's a little underbaked but I think this is the way a lot of people are going to go. Seems like the 'par' tool in a sibling comment is a similar approach.
Containers do make things easier, especially since agents can see the log output of any service super easily. To do the same thing outside a container you need to send logs somewhere the agent can see.
There's also container-use by dagger (docker creators): https://github.com/dagger/container-use
Would be nice to have it listed as a brew formula, instead of pip.
Hey, you might be interested in my project Plandex[1] which uses a shadow git repo approach to keep changes separate until you approve them. It solves the same problem as worktrees.
1 - https://github.com/plandex-ai/plandex
Crystal is similar and works with existing checked out repos https://github.com/stravu/crystal
I tried Crystal for the first time today and really enjoyed it. It’s a bit rough around the edges but it’s usable and notably it Does One Thing Really Well. All I wanted was a simple way to run a bunch of Claude codes in parallel and isolation and it does exactly that. No more, no less. No opinionation about how I organize my code, no custom config files I have to think about and manage, just simple work isolation workflow with a GUI.
Came here to shout out Crystal. It's the best of these tools I have come across!
I tried out git worktrees recently and while they do what's on the tin, I really didn't like them as much as I thought I would. I actually like the way cursor does it despite the fact that it is a VM - I wish I could have their same UI/UX but with local worktrees.
The git worktrees feature has first garnered public attention since anthropic mentioned it in its claude code good practices. Until then it was just one of these obscure git features most professionals have never heard of. Now all these agents and claude code wrappers are trying to make use of git worktrees - but in all honesty - it's overcomplicating most workflows more than being of a real use for agentic coding. The bottleneck was - for most workflows - never the ai not being able to write 10 different poc of my feature simultaneously - but the human factor - needing to carefully review what ai produced and still steering ai in the right direction. git worktrees doesn't help solve any of these problems. it just adds an unnecessary layer on top.
Agree and disagree.
Yes, the bottleneck is going to still be human review. But with only a single Claude Code (or Cursor), I spent a lot of time (a couple minutes at a time) waiting for the agent to run through its loop completing what I asked it to do. In this time I found I was naturally switching context, but not always productively (checking slack, email, whatever). I called it "agent lag" time.
Now with these worktrees tools, I can easily bounce between tasks I have the agents working on during these natural lulls. Overall I'm able to get more done and spend my time more efficiently.
Also, Cursor has had the option to run multiple agents for a while (in tabs), but I always found it cumbersome because all the agents are operating on the same git checkout, so you have to take special care for them not to conflict with each other. Worktrees completely solve that problem.
This is what I’ve been thinking about recently.
Babysitting one process, but giving it all of my attention[1] can lead to rapid progress.
Pushing forward multiple efforts simultaneously can lead to rapid progress if code is largely unrelated and you keep a sharp eye on branching and commits.
However, it’s remarkably easy to make a mistake and be enamored by how well the AI can use git to fix your mistake.
But the cost ends up being adherence to it, specification or architecture, or being distracted into scope creep.
The new scope might be useful for factoring, but that is also the kind of thing that interfere with your Main processor trying to handle.
And it’s remarkably easy to get lost in the state when you have to manage validation well.
The more mature the project and more intense the expectation of scm hygiene, the more punitive small mistakes can become.
It is not really a problem in my process prior to Claude code, which was almost entirely turned based chat.
I still have configured fairly complex and detailed session workflows to preserve state amidst the regular threat of auto compact.
Even I even have documentation, describing a plan to migrate into git worktrees myself, but haven’t been able to justify the move, as I continue to learn to be productive with a single main session focus.
[1] I don’t know if there is such a thing as constant focus on a complex genetic programming effort because of the delays involved. You can stare at the funny verbs anthropic picks while the tokens go brrrr for only so long.
Yes I had a similar experience. the thing that tripped me up with git worktrees, which is maybe obvious in retrospect, is that they don’t include things that are not tracked by git - e.g. .env.development.local
So starting a new worktree requires additional setup and isn’t as simple as just checking out a new branch
Sorry about that! We’re working on making this more intuitive.
Internally our workflow looks like this: - we have a script that sets up a repo — copies env variables, runs pnpm i, inits a db, etc - we have a field in the repo settings called “setup script.” every time you make a new workspace, that script runs
Hopefully will be much improved over the next week or two!
But that is also the selling point of worktrees - I have them for multiple features I am working on, I just spin up services that I need for each feature separately, like databases, etc. How else are you going to isolate migrations, configuration changes, etc.
I'm working on a little wrapper that solves this problem. I have similar needs with .env files, and in my case running 'uv sync' to install dependencies. I linked it elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat the URL (autowt). It's definitely possible to make this workflow effective with some scripting.
Could you group the main repo and its worktrees under a common parent directory that contains your .env.development.local?
Ah that’s a good idea I’ll have to try that out
check out https://github.com/dagger/container-use! it uses worktrees under the hood, but hides them from the user and agent. it basically gives you containers tracked by git branches and plugs into any MCP-compatible agent. you're then free to make your own worktrees from those branches, but you can also just use them in your normal checkout.
I plan to use par for this https://github.com/coplane/par simple cli to put sugar over git worktrees and using cli agents
Hi, creator here. If you want to copy node_modules instead of reinstalling, you can click on the repo and add a setup script that does the copy. Sorry it’s a bit obscure—we’re working on making this easier!
Would love to discuss more what kind of testing setup you’re looking for, want to shoot me an email at jackson@melty.sh?
Also the working on PRs workflow seems broken - the local branch doesn't have the changes that are on the PR so I can't pick it up and continue working on it.
Agreed that worktrees seem clearly better.
"This is bad, because you need to run all the dependency installs", you must be using Python or one of the other locally cached dependency language tookings. Is never understood why people wanto clone everything every time. Maven and its sibling use ~/.m2 so everything gets cached once. I ceinge every time I have to re-download the universe when I inevitably have to delete my venv and redo anything, what a waste of time and bandwidth and space.
Exactly. If Conductor would work with local branches I would switch from Crystal.
hey, co-creator of Claude Squad – imo the most popular+used of these "claude code multiplexers" and it's also open source and free :)
works like you'd expect
https://github.com/smtg-ai/claude-squad
I just tried Claude Squad this morning , the instructions to use and interface was very clunky . There also was no uninstall instructions or scripts , so I had to write one and uninstall it. Lame
How do you suggest simultaneous independent branches be worked on concurrently from a single repository copy, or is it that you would simply prefer the local work tree method of duplication? And, for example, how do you suggest the same node_modules be used if part of the task requires changing, removing, or updating dependencies? Additionally, how much time do you expect a developer to spend implementing this new system your suggesting across all platforms for the benefit of it taking you a bit less time, especially when pulling dependencies from a local caches as I’m sure you’re doing? Or are you making a suggestion that you plan to contribute?
I’m sure the authors would appreciate well-thought alternative suggestions and assistance.
So this is why Claude Code is so slow now. I am all for these but not at the cost of other more casual users. I never had to worry about Sonnet use but even that is not guaranteed. Forget Opus.
Any way to have it not require full write access to your entire GitHub account?
Fixed! You can now give Conductor fine-grained GitHub repository access.
Or, skip the integration and use your local GitHub CLI auth.
Yes, we're working on this!
Right now the app uses GitHub's OAuth sign in (https://docs.github.com/en/apps/oauth-apps/building-oauth-ap...) which unfortunately doesn't allow for fine-grained permissions (it will only have access to organization code if you explicitly grant it) . We're switching our sign-in to a GitHub App so we can make the permissions fine-grained.
Why not local git support?
Yeah, it’s not like this is a saas and you’d need back-end access to the repos. I suspect this is being run with business potential in mind. The OP would do better by making that clear. And if you are selling a self-hosted app, just charge a license fee. People on 100-200/month claude code subscription wouldn’t mind paying 10-30 bucks for this.
Who does your design? I absolutely love this aesthetic, both this product, and your site (chorus.sh). What is this even called? I went for a similar vibe with tinylogger.com, but def didn't have your skills to pull it off.
Hi, appreciate the note! I'm Julian, I do all the design at Melty. I try to design our software to be functional, visually subtle, and chromatically warm. I don't know that the aesthetic has a name, but I've spent a lot of time studying manuscripts from the early middle ages so that might have seeped in - the logo for Conductor is actually a variant of insular majuscule (you can see the ductus in the animation)
Ah thank you! Our designer is Julian Kelly (https://jfk.works). He's amazing, and worked on Messenger at Meta — a background which has been surprisingly helpful since everything we're working on is a spin on chatting.
corus.sh looks like a modified bento grid layout: https://tailwindcss.com/plus/ui-blocks/marketing/sections/be...
Crystal can do all of this and more, and unlike Conductor is open source.
https://github.com/stravu/crystal
There’s a “feel” to the way Claude Code outputs the text. And for input as well.
Sadly, this is lost with conductor.
I just don’t feel as joyful using it.
Ah, we’d love for Conductor to feel magical to use — we spend a lot of time thinking about this. Any chance you could say more about what’s lost?
Is some of the intermediary output being suppressed? This gives the feeling of CC "working" on my behalf.
Being able to quickly hit escape to interject. Escape again to see the conversation history.
The key bindings should be exactly the same.
I don't think I'm looking for an interface to replace CC - it's a great interactive terminal app.
I just want a better way to manage the sessions.
I'm in the midst of modernizing a 1994 K&R C 32-bit codebase to 64-bit C23, as a museum piece: the computer algebra system Macaulay that I coauthored, since replaced by Macaulay 2.
The horror!
On macOS my environment is Sublime Text as editor, iTerm as terminal. I open two full screen iTerm windows of four panes each, start Claude Code Opus 4 and type "just task" in each pane. CLAUDE.md tells the session to run this justfile command and follow the directions, which generally include instructions to continue by doing "just task" again. Each session may edit its <file>.c and <file>.h but not shared headers; if it has a problem with this I touch STOP in the task directory, the other sessions eventually are told to wait, and then the trouble child session can edit what it wants.
I'm sure in a few years AI will read and fix my 57 C file code base all at once, but for now this workflow has proved invaluable.
The irony? This is the dumbest parallel task manager imaginable yet it works. And our code base has a similar feel: The storage management is a set of fixed sized stacks that outperformed malloc() by 4x back in the day. Etc. Etc.
I learned this gift from my Dad. He devised the Bayer filter for digital photography back in 1974, it looks like ten minutes work (it wasn't) but we're still using it.
Out of curiosity, ~how many lines of C in all is the C you're refactoring?
Reason I ask is I have gotten outstanding results from gemini pro 2.5, which has a very large context.
It already accepts very large individual messages, however if the code base is still too big for a single message, it is possible to send it all in multiple messages and still have the model keep it all in context.
For large, system wide refactors, this can provide planning that claude code can't or won't do efficiently.
Sometimes, I'll have claude code come up with a plan, feed all the related code to gemini, and then provide claude code gemeni's improved plan.
Then after the work is done, have gemeni validate the implementation.
I've looked a bit into automation around this but haven't picked something yet.
If anyone has a solid workflow for this already, I'm all ears.
From: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
> the support for submodules is incomplete
This has been a stumbling block for me. In C firmware, there’s no package management so submodules tend to be how we bring in libraries.
My experience has been that worktrees simply do not work with submodules.
I like the concept, but I need the ability to interact with a repo I've already cloned. I can't connect this to my work GitHub enterprise repos.
This is pretty cool, here are few feedbacks:
- I switch in between planning and execution in the middle of the conversation using Terminal a lot, it would be nice to have it here as well rather than defining how I want Claude to think in advance.
- Entering messages when the agents can result in task lists to save time.
I’m also experimenting different UX with CC, here is Claude Code running in Slack if anybody is interested. https://peerbot.ai
Thank you! Yes, I agree, we're adding plan mode soon. For now I find Opus responds reliably to "plan this out and don't make any changes."
> - Entering messages when the agents can result in task lists to save time.
Ah yes, queuing coming soon too! Do you prefer if the queued messages send when Claude is finished or interrupt it?
Queued would be more useful as we can also stop the conversation and prompt right away.
For me, getting Claude Code working properly two days in a row (12 -14 hours per day) is still a challenge.
Let it running in parallel "unwatched" will end up with nothing but a pile of code that will have to be re-written.
It was not that way at the beginning, when I started in May 24th (2 days post Sonnet/Opus 4 announcement), however, last 2 - 3 weeks, they've tweaked they system substantially (I mean I have no other explanation) and its behavior is despicable.
I have see a few on X complaining the same (along with far more about GPT o3 and 4o) but the culture of "opaque transparency" in the AI industry left us with nothing but guesses.
FWIW, this has been the way of working with AI products since the beginning. For example, chatgpt has waxed and waned even without model updates due to how the context gearing behind the web interface.
You can see in various subreddits the spikes in complaints--and there is definitely one in week(s) on Claude Code.
I generally take this as a sign of needing to get more skilled at context control and validation. And that by doing so, you'll be in only a better place once the product you're relying returns to baseline or leaps ahead again.
thanks. I suspect those tuning take place in order to maintain cost/experience level, that is, keeping a "good enough" product while cutting cost of inference.
I also suspect it is tuned for ultimate experience upon release to grade well on benchmarks and online reports, then tuned back to a level they can bear as they burn investors money.
the need is clear, I am just expecting transparency.
Love it! Even just simply freeing my main branch would be a big win so I can keep working as well.
But no way to find out if there’s any data sent to your servers etc, unless I’m missing some links?
Love to hear it! Your messages are just between you and Claude Code — it all runs on your local Claude Code installation via the SDK (https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/sdk)
This is very useful! I think the interfaces around models being used in an async manner will look very different than the synchronous chat UIs we are today. Claude Code is the first real “agent” that is providing true economic value, and there’s so much low hanging fruit in making the interfaces far better.
Thank you! Yes I agree :)
Looks cool, but I don't quite get it? What happens if I just open a new terminal window and start Claude in that?
That works when you just do it once. Where you can run into problems is when you do that twice. One instance might change a file one way, and the other might change it in a conflicting way, then you have two Claudes getting confused about the state of that file and it gets messy. You can solve this by checking out multiple copies of your repo and having only one instance of Claude working per copy. This app seems like it just provides you with a nice UI for doing that.
I just do it with multiple terminals + checkouts + branches -- this seems to just get in the way.
But I'm an old school vim/emacs keyboard only hacker, so terminal all the way is super efficient for me
Same here, but I am looking at Par for this. Terminal session manager. Basically a tmux wrapper.
https://github.com/coplane/par
that was interesting, thanks for the reference
Yes that's how I do Claude code manually, git branch per terminal window, and very rarely multiple agents on the same branch
It mostly works, except we don't have a clean flow for docker: shared system daemon & repository means need to manually tag & run by branch/project (docker compose -p ...), which is friction for the LLM and even more setup than we want
As a heavy multi session Claude Code user, this may be what finally converts me to cloud IDEs...
For that workflow, you might be happier with https://vibetunnel.sh.
I've been looking for a tool like this, that lets Claude operate on multiple repos. I work on a project that has frontend/packages and backend (separate repos instead of a monorepo for good reasons) and I often develop features that cross both repos. With the terminal I can clone both down into a directory and start Claude code there, but all the tools for background/multiplexing are always built around a single repo. Any chance I can get multi-repo tasks supported?
Here is what worked for me.
1. Place all your repos inside a parent directory and name them accordingly (frontend, backend, devops, etc.)
2. Each repo has its own claude file.
3. The parent repo has a claude file that links these claude files.
I’ve had claude successfully navigate across these and uses services with back-end, setup terraform infra and then complete the implementation for the front-end.
Yes if I just run Claude Code it works fine. But I want to be able to use any of these multiplexing tools (eg Codex, Cursor Background Agents, this Conductor tool) in the same scenario.
The problem is worktrees in this case.
Full read-write access required to all your Github account's repos. Not just code. Settings, deploy keys. The works. Full access to your organisation settings. Not a privacy policy in sight. Zero disclosure of data practices.
You are INSANE to authorize this app on anything other than throwaway code.
@charlieholtz care to comment?
Hi! Right now the app uses GitHub's OAuth sign in (https://docs.github.com/en/apps/oauth-apps/building-oauth-ap...) which unfortunately doesn't allow for fine-grained permissions.
It will only have access to organization code if you explicitly grant it. We're working on switching our sign-in to a GitHub App so we can make the permissions fine-grained.
Totally understand, but you're asking for the keys for the kingdom, without any data disclosure or privacy policy. Even if you switch to fine-grain permissions, the lack of any "and here are our commitments to handling or accessing your data" is (and should be) a show-stopper for anyone trying this out.
In case people aren't reading, here's the c+v of what Conductor gets access to currently:
--
This application will be able to read and write all public and private repository data. This includes the following:
Note: In addition to repository related resources, the repo scope also grants access to manage organization attributes and organization-owned resources including projects, invitations, team memberships and webhooks. This scope also grants the ability to manage projects owned by users.Now fixed in the latest version. You can now give Conductor fine-grained GitHub repository access.
Or, skip the integration and use your local GitHub CLI auth.
I have been imagining something like this would be perfect for working with Claude Code. I tried a couple other apps but they seemed to change too much without providing enough value for that change. This feels like just a nice clean simple extension of how Claude code already works that solves my most common pain points in the workflow.
Anyways, excellent work!
thanks so much!!
This is awesome. A couple of suggestions:
- It'd be great to change the default branch used for creating new workspaces.
- I'd like the ability to add custom tools to the "Open in..." menu.
Ah yeah! Which IDE do you use?
> It'd be great to change the default branch used for creating new workspaces. Yeah you can actually change this now! If you click the repo name you can make changes to the "setup script". If you added `git checkout -b "branch name"` it would run that on every new workspace instance.
At the moment it's mostly Cursor or VS Code, but I was actually thinking of SourceTree. I'd like to look at the pending changes and manage the commits myself, and I could do that if I could add "open -a SourceTree ." as a custom command. I didn't see a place to edit a setup script, is that just on the filesystem?
Got it! If you click the repository name in the left sidebar, you should see a field for setup script.
FWIW, this is what I wound up with - keeps the original branch name but ensures that it's based on the latest from the "dev" branch:
orig_branch=$(git branch --show-current) && git checkout dev && git pull && git branch -D "$orig_branch" && git checkout -b "$orig_branch"
Ah, excellent - appreciate the help! I'm already getting a ton of value out of this tool, thanks for sharing!
wooo that's awesome to hear! keep the feedback coming!
I've often been running several claude code sessions across separate terminal tabs. Was a user of chorus.sh and excited to try another product from y'all! Congrats
We do our dev on Linux desktops using VS Code ssh remotes from our Macs. Is this possible with Conductor?
Doesn't using LLM for coding mean that your code and secrets leak to other companies? How can you be sure that they don't look at it or don't sell it?
You get enterprise contracts that forbid them from doing that.
The tools like Cursor have privacy mode that ensure that.
Lots of enterprises use Azure, GCP, AWS for the models for these reasons as well.
Why would you store secrets in your dev environment?
Regarding the code, I don't believe it is a concern for most of the people, because they use 3rd party git repo anyway, which has exactly the same level of risk
Not bad, it works better if your code is preorganized. Would be good to have a brownfield script to start things off.
Is it similar to what OpenAI Codex does with isolated environments per agent run?
We create an isolated git worktree locally on your machine — whereas Codex (I believe) is running a container on the cloud
Can you intelligently bake in Claude code router? That would help both with token budget but more importantly multiplexing between different models.
Cool idea, and I'm definitely not in the target market (I'm a Linux user and also very hesitant to adopt proprietary tools to my important workflows), but something like this could be useful. Right now though it's pretty easy to run each in a different tmux window and check on it, but once I have about 3 or more running at a time it's very easy to forget about one and have it paused waiting for confirmation. A tool like this to add a dashboard of sorts would be nice. Definitely interesting to think about!
https://github.com/smtg-ai/claude-squad sounds like it might a better fit for your usecase, free and open-source :)
Neat, thank you!
I noticed that I found Claude great for squashing bugs/issues, and started using worktrees but saw similar problems as you described, so I enlisted Claude and wrote https://github.com/Someblueman/hydra to solve for this very issue, keeping (or rather trying) it in pure shell for personal portability and gives me a playground for AI driven development
Cool, thank you!
Love the design. does it build on electron? and will it support other code agents, like gemini cli, codex, opencode ext.
Is it Claude Codes or Claudes Code?
Claudes' Codes?!
I am smart, capable, and have a lot of programming experience, and can just about manage to stay focused enough to properly review the output of a single Claude agent.
I'm surprised people are running multiple agents, and are able to check their outputs diligently.
I don't deserve to own my Windows system
Oh cool, I was already doing this with git worktrees but a ui for it would be handy.
Let me know how it goes!
You might want to mention it's silicon only.
Sorry about that, working on Intel right now!
Intel version now live!
Would be cool if I can use this with opencode, Amazon Q or whatever. I reckon the logic would be quite similar. Seen a few of these tools but they're all Claude-centric.
This looks like the perfect opportunity to develop a general purpose git worktree utility and IDE plugin.
Its for mac only? But isn't it just an API wrapper?
Yes Mac only (for now)
Tech bros will do anything to avoid coding I guess.
If you don’t like code so much you can just do something else with your life. Have you tried sales or finance?