cezar

The deciding trait is the cockpit. Steps, tool calls, token counts and diffs stream into a browser tab while the work happens, so supervising four runs costs about as much attention as supervising one. Anyone who has kept three terminals open and lost track of which one was doing what will recognise what that buys.

What it does not do is any coding. It dispatches to the agents you already run, so its quality is their quality plus scheduling. Pick it when you have more tasks than patience. Pick a single agent if you would rather deepen one workflow than widen four.

The failure mode is scale without supervision. Several agents finishing unattended on a remote host means the first sign of trouble is a queue of completed work nobody watched, and each of those runs had shell access and commit rights. The row documents the flag and the deployment pattern together, which is candid, and does not describe a stop condition for either.

What it does right is refuse to own your credentials. It uses the CLI logins already on the machine, so there is no new account holding a token and no vendor sitting between you and your provider.

1. Isolation is delegated to a primitive that already works. Worktrees give each task its own checkout with shared object storage, which is cheaper than containers and correct for the property being protected. 2. Persisting state as line-delimited records under version control means a run's history is inspected with the same tools as the code, and survives the program that wrote it.

2. There is no database and no service, so the design has no component whose absence breaks replay. 4. No evaluation is published, and the row claims none.

An orchestration layer over other companies' CLIs is a hard economic position. The subscriptions that fund the actual work belong to somebody else, this layer charges nothing, and the moment any of those vendors ships parallel task queues the layer becomes a feature they already own. Two backends here are marked experimental, which is the shape of a project chasing a moving field.

Moat: none. Likely path: the capability is absorbed by the agents it schedules. Position: use it now, expect it to be redundant, and keep nothing in it you cannot reproduce.

The tool is free and the thing it multiplies is not. Every parallel task is another billed session against whichever agent subscription my engineers already hold, so this changes the consumption curve of a line item finance thought it had understood. That is the number I would watch first.

It can run headless, which means it could sit in delivery tooling rather than only on laptops, and that is the version I would evaluate. There is no identity integration and no central audit record. Approved with conditions: one pilot team, our own host, and consumption reported monthly.

No accounts, no database, no cloud. That sentence is in the row and for once it is accurate: the thing runs on my machine, reuses the authentication I already set up, and stores everything inside the repository where I can grep it. A permissive licence means a fork survives whatever the vendor decides next.

The limits are honest ones. No MCP client, so my servers reach it only through the agents it dispatches to, and no local weights, because the backends it drives are hosted tools. It is a scheduler, and it does not pretend otherwise.