I can't find a single good use case for a serious business using any of these automation agents like Hermes, Openclaw etc.
It seems they are good for personal productivity improvement, which is great on its own, however I want to know if anyone actually drawing revenue from solely using these agents.
For anyone who thinks the golden age of AI is over, that every app idea is already vibecoded, and that nobody will pay for software anymore, look at this image. You're way further ahead than you think. The value you're creating right now? Most people aren't even close.
Everyone sits somewhere on a spectrum: Consumer on one end, Producer on the other. If you're in this subreddit, you're already deep on the Producer side. That's your edge. Don't forget it.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of tokens it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding landed well last week, I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version.
Basically you can fire up multiple code reviews either using tmux or headless sessions of the CLIs you already pay for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.
I found that relying on one LLM isn't good enough. Even Opus 4.7 at max effort makes plenty of mistakes. Throwing other LLMs in the mix made a huge difference. Last week I had Opus approve a PR clean, Kimi flagged a missing tenant check on a service-role query, and Gemini caught a race condition in a retry loop. Three reviewers, three different bugs, one PR.
Initially I ran Opus with Codex, then added Gemini, and now Chinese models like Kimi and Deepseek. Started off doing it manually, then got Claude to coordinate it via tmux sessions, which works but is clunky to manage. Now there's a headless mode too, and you can kick off reviews straight from MCP commands inside whatever CLI you already use.
I also added a fallback option, so if one LLM runs out of quota it retries with another. You can pick unanimous or majority consensus. You can also assign a persona to each LLM , one looks at security issues, another at architecture drift, etc. It piggybacks on the CLI subscriptions you already pay for, so no extra API bills stacking up.
Added a nice UI to the whole thing so it's easy to manage and visualise. Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Repo link in the comments if anyone wants to give it a go.
After my posts on multi-LLM coding blew up last week (600k+ views and 2k+ upvotes), I went full rabbit hole mode and built a proper polished version. Just open-sourced the whole thing for everyone.
Quick backstory: I used to just code with Claude Code, always riding the latest model. But when Opus 4.7 dropped and felt a bit underwhelming, I started throwing Codex into the mix... and holy shit, it was night and day. Having one model write the code and another brutally review it produces way better results than either alone. Their blind spots just don’t overlap.
So I hacked together a script to spin up multiple tmux sessions with different CLIs (Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, etc.), threw the repo up, and people actually loved it. The comments were full of the awesome suggestions.
I took that feedback and went all in.
Meet Chorus Codes
https://github.com/chorus-codes/chorus
It’s a multi-LLM setup you can fire up from any CLI. It connects to all the major CLIs (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, Kimi) and OpenRouter for everything else.
It runs reviews in parallel, uses quorum voting so they actually have to agree before you ship, lets you assign personas (security guy, performance nerd etc.), and has a beautiful dashboard so you can watch all the models thinking, debating, and voting live, all running on localhost.
The part that really convinced me to build this properly is the cost. Most multi-LLM tools go through paid APIs, so every extra reviewer costs more. Chorus just drives the desktop CLIs you’re already paying a flat rate for. So your second and third opinions are basically free.
Fully open source. No paywalls, no freemium b.s.
Would love feedback or PRs if you end up trying it.
So my last post blew up, turns out a lot of people hit the same Claude blind-spots problem. Going deeper this time.
Quick recap. Been on the 20x Claude plan running Opus 4.6 / 4.7 exclusively for a while. Last week I tried Codex 5.5 and was shocked by how much Opus had been missing. Pairing them felt like the piece I'd been waiting for.
A week later I'm way past two agents. Current setup, all in tmux:
Built a /work command in Claude that handles four shapes: plan, implement, major bug, minor bug. For each one it builds a context pack, sends it to 3 reviewers in parallel, waits for consensus.
The thing that actually matters here is lineage diversity. Reviewers are picked as 1 Codex + 1 Gemini + 1 OpenCode. Same-family models share blind spots, three Codex sessions reviewing the same code is mostly an echo chamber. Need all three lineages to agree before the gate opens. If they don't, Claude revises and runs it again.
Before any merge, Claude fills out a 4 question checklist (coding principles, architecture drift, tests pass, reviewer consensus) and I pick merge / fix first / override with reason. Catches a lot of "I think it's done" moments.
Cost so far is basically $0 on top of the subscriptions I already had.
The thing I keep noticing: Opus by itself is great until it isn't, and the failures are silent. Code looks reasonable, tests pass, but there's a subtle bug or design drift that only shows up later. Having a different model family read the same code fresh catches a startling amount of it.
Happy to share the /work prompt and orchestrator if anyone wants to make it their own, let me know.
So my last post blew up, turns out a lot of people hit the same Claude blind-spots problem. Going deeper this time.
Quick recap. Been on the 20x Claude plan running Opus 4.6 / 4.7 exclusively for a while. Last week I tried Codex 5.5 and was shocked by how much Opus had been missing. Pairing them felt like the piece I'd been waiting for.
A week later I'm way past two agents. Current setup, all in tmux:
Built a /work command in Claude that handles four shapes: plan, implement, major bug, minor bug. For each one it builds a context pack, sends it to 3 reviewers in parallel, waits for consensus.
The thing that actually matters here is lineage diversity. Reviewers are picked as 1 Codex + 1 Gemini + 1 OpenCode. Same-family models share blind spots, three Codex sessions reviewing the same code is mostly an echo chamber. Need all three lineages to agree before the gate opens. If they don't, Claude revises and runs it again.
Before any merge, Claude fills out a 4 question checklist (coding principles, architecture drift, tests pass, reviewer consensus) and I pick merge / fix first / override with reason. Catches a lot of "I think it's done" moments.
Cost so far is basically $0 on top of the subscriptions I already had.
The thing I keep noticing: Opus by itself is great until it isn't, and the failures are silent. Code looks reasonable, tests pass, but there's a subtle bug or design drift that only shows up later. Having a different model family read the same code fresh catches a startling amount of it.
Happy to share the /work prompt and orchestrator if anyone wants to make it their own, let me know.
So my last post blew up, turns out a lot of people hit the same Claude blind-spots problem. Going deeper this time.
Quick recap. Been on the 20x Claude plan running Opus 4.6 / 4.7 exclusively for a while. Last week I tried Codex 5.5 and was shocked by how much Opus had been missing. Pairing them felt like the piece I'd been waiting for.
A week later I'm way past two agents. Current setup, all in tmux:
Built a /work command in Claude that handles four shapes: plan, implement, major bug, minor bug. For each one it builds a context pack, sends it to 3 reviewers in parallel, waits for consensus.
The thing that actually matters here is lineage diversity. Reviewers are picked as 1 Codex + 1 Gemini + 1 OpenCode. Same-family models share blind spots, three Codex sessions reviewing the same code is mostly an echo chamber. Need all three lineages to agree before the gate opens. If they don't, Claude revises and runs it again.
Before any merge, Claude fills out a 4 question checklist (coding principles, architecture drift, tests pass, reviewer consensus) and I pick merge / fix first / override with reason. Catches a lot of "I think it's done" moments.
Cost so far is basically $0 on top of the subscriptions I already had.
The thing I keep noticing: Opus by itself is great until it isn't, and the failures are silent. Code looks reasonable, tests pass, but there's a subtle bug or design drift that only shows up later. Having a different model family read the same code fresh catches a startling amount of it.
Happy to share the /work prompt and orchestrator if anyone wants to make it their own, let me know.
So my last post blew up, turns out a lot of people hit the same Claude blind-spots problem. Going deeper this time.
Quick recap. Been on the 20x Claude plan running Opus 4.6 / 4.7 exclusively for a while. Last week I tried Codex 5.5 and was shocked by how much Opus had been missing. Pairing them felt like the piece I'd been waiting for.
A week later I'm way past two agents. Current setup, all in tmux:
Built a /work command in Claude that handles four shapes: plan, implement, major bug, minor bug. For each one it builds a context pack, sends it to 3 reviewers in parallel, waits for consensus.
The thing that actually matters here is lineage diversity. Reviewers are picked as 1 Codex + 1 Gemini + 1 OpenCode. Same-family models share blind spots, three Codex sessions reviewing the same code is mostly an echo chamber. Need all three lineages to agree before the gate opens. If they don't, Claude revises and runs it again.
Before any merge, Claude fills out a 4 question checklist (coding principles, architecture drift, tests pass, reviewer consensus) and I pick merge / fix first / override with reason. Catches a lot of "I think it's done" moments.
Cost so far is basically $0 on top of the subscriptions I already had.
The thing I keep noticing: Opus by itself is great until it isn't, and the failures are silent. Code looks reasonable, tests pass, but there's a subtle bug or design drift that only shows up later. Having a different model family read the same code fresh catches a startling amount of it.
Happy to share the /work prompt and orchestrator if anyone wants to make it their own, let me know.
