Comment by faangguyindia

The agent I’m developing is designed to improve or expand upon "old codebases." While many agents can generate code from scratch, the real challenge lies in enhancing legacy code without breaking anything.

This is the problem I’m tackling, and so far, the approach has been effective. It's simple enough for anyone to use: the agent makes a commit, and you can either undo, squash, or amend it through the Git UI.

The issue is that developers often skip reviewing the code properly. To counter that, I’m considering shifting to a hunk-by-hunk review process, where each change is reviewed individually. Once the review is complete, the agent would commit the code.

The concept is simple, but the fun lies in the implementation details—like integrating existing CLI tools without giving the agent full shell access, unlike other agents.

What excites me most is the idea of letting 2–3 agents compete, collaborate, and interpret outputs to solve problems and "fight" to find the best solution.

That’s where the real fun is.

Think of it as surgeons scalpel approach rather than "steam roller" approach most agents take.