I really didn't get the article. The author seemed to think that agent coordination/collaboration was some novel idea. I think I first saw it being used in CrewAI [0] almost 2 years ago, now.
From what I've experienced when you just let the agents figure it out, to your point, they collaborate awkwardly. If you define how/where in your initial spec of what's being built that seems to go a long way in resolving this. However, agents still seem to end up out of alignment with the demands of the spec. I was testing Astra yesterday on a new tool that should have been able to be completed in a couple hours. I let it go and had it simply use a Sol agent for coding and a Opus agent for review. Opus was explicitly asked to validate the progress between checkpoints, one of those being to keep watch for scope creep.
It was half a day later and basically only the scaffolding was done. I asked why and it literally told me it was working on things I had not directed it to, that it was spending too much time on things I hadn't asked for. WTF good are these uber LLMs when they are making decisions and dismissing the prompt? I'm finding the smaller models seem to be able to stay on track much better and I'm constantly wondering if the current SOTA models should really be used in the review and cleanup phase only. But that seems very backwards as when I first started leaning into building out the most complete spec for a given task - it worked really well. Something seems to be degrading that workflow, now.
I feel like it's becoming more and more of a chore to get things done efficiently. But I don't really find that using Astra/Fable makes anything better at this point. In fact the Kimi models work really well together in this workflow. K3 does a great job of orchestration and I'd say is the more reliable of the 3 for a spec driven outcome. Wondering if this is all intentional by OAI and Anthropic to prod the models under the cover to go off and do their own thing and dismiss the directive.