Perhaps it's all moot as the usage you get from a subscription plan will eventually no longer be subsidized. Also, I have to wonder about what layers of coordination done externally to a model can be persistently better than within tool coordination? Like, with an anthropic feature like agent teams, I feel like it might be tough to beat anthropic native coordination of various Claude sessions because they might have better internal tool and standards awareness, which makes feeling like plugging something like this more difficult unless one's goal is to plug something like this into an open source model.
Geniunely curious how other people are thinking about this!!
Edit: I actually see that this tool claims that it can run within your existing Claude Code subscription, so now I'm extra interested.
DeepSteve (deepsteve.com) has a similar premise: it spawns Claude Code processes and attaches terminals to them in a browser UI, so you can automate coordination in ways a regular terminal can’t: Spawning new agents from GitHub issues, coordinating tasks via inter-agent chat, modifying its own UI, terminals that fork themselves.
Re: native vs external orchestration, I think the external layer matters precisely because it doesn’t have to replicate traditional company hierarchies. I’m less interested in “AI org chart” setups like gstack (we don’t have to bring antiquated corporate hierarchies with us) and more in hackable, flat coordination where agents talk to each other via MCP and you decide the topology yourself.
Deepsteve is a node server that runs on your machine, so the website is designed to look like DeepSteve's UI. You really just access it at localhost:3000 in your browser, not via deepsteve.com
But now I can see how that would be confusing.