dmux

You will feel the improvement immediately if you have ever had two agents edit the same file. Each task gets its own checkout and its own branch, so they cannot see each other's half-finished work, and that separation is the deciding daily trait, because the failure that wastes an hour is not a bad suggestion, it is two good suggestions applied to the same lines.

Pick it if parallel work is genuinely how you operate. Pick Claude Squad when you mostly run one agent and occasionally two, and would rather not learn another layout.

Two problems, one deferred and one immediate. The deferred one is arithmetic: four agents on four branches produce four sets of changes that must eventually meet, and the merge is harder than the collisions you prevented, because each side is now internally consistent and mutually incompatible. The immediate one is that no isolation is recorded anywhere on this row, so four agents mean four processes running commands as you.

What it does right: a backup inference provider is configured at first run, so a rate limit degrades the session instead of ending it.

1. The isolation primitive is version control rather than containment, which is cheap, correct for the file-level problem and entirely silent on process-level concerns. Naming that distinction matters, because the two are routinely conflated in this category. 2. Hooks run on creation and on either side of a merge, which is precisely where an automated check belongs, and the project supplies the extension point without supplying the check.

No benchmark applies and the repository README is the only documentation. The observation: the hooks are the most useful feature and they arrive empty.

The traction is respectable and the defensibility is close to zero. Pairing terminal multiplexing with per-task checkouts is a technique rather than a technology, and every agent vendor that notices the problem will ship its own version, free, inside a product the user already has. There is no price here, no hosted component and nothing that accumulates over time.

Likely path: absorbed as a feature elsewhere, with the maintainers hired or the repository slowing. Position: use the binary, and do not model a company around a pattern this easy to copy.

One sentence on the demo: four agents working at once looks impressive and costs four times as much. That is the whole procurement issue. The tool is free and installs per developer, which means there is no console, no policy and no way for me to see how many parallel sessions anyone is running, while the spend lands on our provider account with no attribution. Windows engineers cannot use it at all.

Onboarding is under an hour for anyone who already uses a terminal multiplexer. Not yet, absent spend reporting.

The first-run configuration is the part I like. It accepts a raw key, a custom endpoint pointing wherever I want including my own server, or an existing consumer subscription login, and it asks for a fallback as well as a primary. That is somebody who has actually run out of quota at two in the morning.

Permissive licence, one command to install, no account and no daemon. The gap is protocol: there is no tool-server client, so anything I have already built has to be reached through whichever agent is in the pane. Readable source makes that a patch rather than a complaint.