Show HN: Mysti – Claude, Codex, and Gemini debate your code, then synthesize (github.com)

Why make it a vscode extension if the point of these 3 tools is a cli interface? Meaning most of the people I know use these tools without VSCode. Is VSC required?

Anyone knows of something similar but for terminal?

Update:

I've already found a solution based on a comment, and modified it a bit.

Inside claude code i've made a new agent that uses the MCP gemini through https://github.com/raine/consult-llm-mcp. this seems to work!

Claude code:

Now let me launch the Gemini MCP specialist to build the backend monitoring server:

gemini-mcp-specialist(Build monitoring backend server) ⎿ Running PreToolUse hook…

> Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem?

I often write with Claude, and at work we have Gemini code reviews on GitHub; definitely these two catch different things. I'd be excited to have them working together in parallel in a nice interface.

If our ops team gives this a thumbs-up security wise I'll be excited to try it out when back at work.

> Would love feedback on the brainstorm mode. Is multi-agent collaboration actually useful or am I just solving my own niche problem?

If it's solving even your own niche problem, it is actually useful though right? Kind of a "yes or yes" question.

This reminds me a lot of eye2.ai, but outside of coding

A workflow I find useful is to have multiple CLI agents running in different Tmux panes and have one consult/delegate to another using my Tmux-CLI [1] tool + skill. Advantage of this is that the agents’ work is fully visible and I can intervene as needed.

[1] https://github.com/pchalasani/claude-code-tools?tab=readme-o...

licensing with BSL when basically every month the AI world is changing is not a smart decision.

This is very useful! I frequently copy the response of one model and ask another to review it and I have seen really good results with that approach.

Can you also include Cursor CLI for the brainstorming? This would allow someone to unlock brainstorming with just one CLI since it allows to use multiple models.

Any benchmarks? For example vs a single model?

Why limit to 2 agents? I typically use all 3.

I have been using it for some time and it getting better and better with time in many cases it’s giving better output than other tools the comparison is great feature too keep up the good work

Multi agent collaboration is quite likely the future. All agents have blind spots, collaboration is how they are offset.

You may want to study [1] - this is the latest thinking on agent collaboration from Google.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shubhamsaboo_we-just-ran-the-...

Have you tried executing multiple agents on a single model with modified prompts and have them try to reach consensus?

That may solve the original problem of paying for three different models.

That sounds like it could get expensive?

Website link on Github points to https://deepmyst.com/

But actually hosted on https://www.deepmyst.com/ with no forwarding from the Apex domain to www so it looks like the website is down.

Otherwise excited to deep dive into this as this is a variant of how we do development and seems to work great when the AI fights each other.

I’ve never seen a profession change so fast as coding right now

I created a simple skill in Claude Code CLI that collaborates with Codex CLI. It is just a prompt saved in the skill format. It uses subagents as well.

Honest question. How is Mysti better than a simple Claude skill that does the same work?

>Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex (OpenAI), and Gemini (Google) have different training, different strengths, and different blind spots.

Do they?

There was a paper about HiveMind in LLMs. They all tend to produce similar outputs when they are asked open ended questions.

How do we measure this is any better than just using 1 good model?

For me when it’s front end I usually work with Claude and have codex review. Otherwise I just work with codex… Claude also if I’m being lazy and want a thing quickly

Getting feedback on a plan or implementation is valuable because you get a fresh set of eyes. Using multiple models may help though it always feels a bit silly to me (if nothing else you’re increasing non-determinism because you know have to understand 2 LLM’s quirks).

But the “playing house” approach of experts is somewhere between pointless and actively harmful. It was all the rage in June and I thought people abandoned that later in the summer.

If you want the model to eg review code instead of fixing things, or document code without suggesting improvements (for writing docs), that’s useful. But there’s. I need for all these personas.

Sounds very similar to LLM council

https://github.com/karpathy/llm-council

Great idea. Whether brainstorm mode is actually useful is hard to say without trying it out, but it sounds like an interesting approach. Maybe it would be a good idea to try running a SWE benchmark with it.

Personally, I wouldn't use the personas. Some people like to try out different modes and slash commands and whatnot - but I am quite happy using the defaults and would rather (let it) write more code than tinker with settings or personas.

how would using multiple services that are incapable of performing the work correctly result in better work?

Codex CLI can run as MCP server ootb which you can call directly from Claude code. Together with a prompt to ask codex for a second opinion, that works very well for me, especially in code reviews.