I’m currently cobbling sub agents with hooks, workflows looks very promising for doing things more predictably.

Is this equivalent of DAGs for sub agents inside claude code? Can i pause and resume/retry workflows? How stateful are they?

Really appreciate it someone claude code can throw more light on above. I’m trying to see if I can get langgraph equivalent DAGs here.

I made my own knockoff of that for myself https://github.com/vblanco20-1/AgentLoom (not really usable, just a vibecoded prototype), based on the workflow files found in the Bun repo. Ive been using it but pointed at deepseek flash to do some really large scale stuff. Its a fun way of using agents, and highly useful for tasks like code review to apply some rules, or to find vulnerability candidates. Funny enough, i used it in the same way claude does, vibecoding the workflow scripts and prompts themselves.

I did find it uses tokens like crazy, i migrated Pixel Dungeon (java) to C# as a experiment, and it used almost 2 billion tokens. It was just 20 bucks due to deepseek flash, but i shudder thinking of how much money this uses when run on the real claude API pricing.

I have had dynamic workflows in my agent for the past 9 months.

I am diffing Claude Code with them, I tend to agree with the analysis.

So far, versus my system, there are tradeoffs, but the dynamic workflows are over tuned to use way more agents that I have ever found add value.

It used 8 to diff our systems. I would have used 4, for example.

I’m gonna try this one on tsz. So far Codex /goal has been great

https://tsz.dev

So far Codex /goal has been amazing but Claude Code /goal or even /loop does not work hard enough and gives up. I have observed it just claiming it’s “iterating” in a broken loop or simply giving up.

Are these “features” just hooks to get people to burn more tokens faster?

I’m at the point where deciding what we should and should not do takes a lot more time than actually doing it. More agents just means running faster in potentially the wrong direction

> Rewriting Bun with dynamic workflows

Are we sure this is a good "success story" example?

Anthropic is going to price themselves out of code, but still find a nice market providing service to senior management. Their long term play is virtual employees rather than tools for humans.

> It’s important to note that dynamic workflows consume meaningfully more usage than a typical Claude Code session

>Claude dynamically writes orchestration scripts

So, is this like a skill the LLM should follow, or an actual "workflow" in the deterministic sense?

If it's the former, is it even reliable for long running tasks? If it's the latter, can users interact with it?

Not sure I understand how it's different from a team of sub-agents, what's the difference I'm curious?