Comment by smrtinsert
3 days ago
Curious what you think of sub agents, don't they still consume a massive amount of tokens compared to simply running in main context? I'm skeptical of any process that starts massively delegating to sub agents. I'm on Pro and don't think its worth upgrading to 200 a month just to not pollute main context.
In my opinion, subagents (or more generally, "agents as tools" as a pattern) are an order-of-magnitude level feature. Soon every CLI agent will have them as a first-class feature (you can get them via custom scripting right now with and CLI agent, albeit less ergonomically).
The ability to isolate context-noisy subtasks (like agentically searching through a large codebase by grepping through dozens of irrelevant files to find the one you actually need) unlocks much longer-running loops, and therefore much more complex tasks.
And you don't need a system this complicated to take advantage of it. Literally just a simple "codebase-searcher" agent (and Claude can vibe the agent definition for you) is enough to see the benefit first-hand. Once you see it, if you're like me, you will see opportunities for subagents everywhere.
This is a great answer IMO.
I think they're worthwhile only as a token context management tool - to complete side quests without using up tokens in your main agent loop.
Using them in a way that doesn't waste tokens is something I haven't fully figured out out yet!
I'm not sure I get this. If anything, they'll consume less tokens, because their context will possibly contain a subset of the original single agent prompt, and they only need to see a subset of the original single agent history.
What am I missing?
Take a look at my example here - having a bunch of sub-agents perform a task consumed 50,000+ tokens each across 5 subtasks, because each one had to consume duplicate information. https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/11/sub-agents/
1 reply →