agent-bridge
Skill18 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
Delegate real coding work to a peer AI agent (such as Claude Code, Codex (ChatGPT), or Gemini (Antigravity)) that runs its own full harness, or use that peer as an independent reviewer, adversarial red-team, ideation & planning partner. Trigger when the user says "use agent bridge", "ask <another agent>", "delegate to <agent>", "have <agent> implement/build/fix this", "get <agent> to review/critique", "get a second opinion", or otherwise hands work to a different agent than the one they're talking to. The bridge auto-detects which agent you are and offers the others as peers, so the same instructions work whichever agent you are running inside. Do NOT trigger for normal work the user wants you to do yourself.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Latth/agent-bridgetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- cocodrino/bridge-harnesstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- ilamanov/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- avas-app/agent-bridgetheir own version, first seen Sep 24, 2026
- JaylanJerry/codex-agent-bridgetheir own version, first seen Sep 20, 2026
- Mihirokte/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 31, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- xyva-yuangui/agent-bridge★ 15same name
- EthanSK/agent-bridge★ 11same name
- cocodrino/bridge-harness★ 4same name
- avas-app/agent-bridge★ 3same name
- Latth/agent-bridge★ 2same name
- ilamanov/skills★ 1same name
- JaylanJerry/codex-agent-bridge★ 0same name
- Mihirokte/agent-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository3 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/agent-bridge/references/claude.mdCLAUDE.md
- bridge-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
7
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 40
Run this from the project root (where you're already working):
- Distinctive: line 51
If the peer gets confused, or the user asks to start fresh, reset and retry — see
- Distinctive: line 64
Read Gotchas below before your first run — most "it looks stuck" moments are the peer thinking.
- Very specific: line 68
Thinking looks like hanging — it isn't: Before its first action, and between actions, a peer often reasons for one to a few minutes.
- Distinctive: line 78
A peer's report on its own output is a claim, not a result: Verify with your own tools before relaying it.
- Very specific: line 84
One run at a time per thread: If a delegation fails immediately with "already has a run in progress", another run is live on that thread — …
- Distinctive: line 202
After the peer reports, verify independently with your own tools (read the files, run the tests) before accepting.
- Distinctive: line 204
If something's off, delegate the fix in the same session, or fix it yourself — your call.
- Distinctive: line 205
When it's done and verified, give the human a short summary: what was built, what you checked, and anything still open.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
agent-bridge — delegate to a peer coding agent
You are the lead engineer. Through the bridge you can hand self-contained work to a peer coding agent (e.g. Claude Code, Codex) running its own harness in auto mode, so it can take sizable work and run it to completion: building, testing, and verifying its own output before reporting back.
The bridge auto-detects which agent you are and which peers you can call. You never delegate to yourself; for that, use your own harness's subagents.
Who can I call?
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" agentsLists the peers available on this machine (everyone except you). Pick one as <peer> in the
commands below. For a specific peer's quirks, read references/<peer>.md in this skill.
Naming exception to keep in mind: "Gemini" means peer agy — Google renamed the Gemini
CLI's successor to the Antigravity CLI, so "ask Gemini" (or "Antigravity") targets agy.
How to delegate
Run this from the project root (where you're already working):
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> "your task for the peer"- It streams the peer's reasoning and actions live — read it as it runs.
- Each run's full transcript is saved under that peer's
logs/. State lives in a global store at~/.agent-bridge/projects/<project>/<you>/<chat>/<peer>/<thread>/; you don't manage any of it. The thread defaults tomain— you only name threads when running peers in parallel (see Parallel delegations below). - If the peer gets confused, or the user asks to start fresh, reset and retry — see Starting a peer over below.
Long tasks, or any task containing $, backticks or quotes: write it to a file and pass
--task-file instead of an argv. The argv goes through your shell first, so a literal
$12B in a prompt becomes 2B and the peer works from a corrupted brief. -
reads stdin. It solves mangling, not size — past ~120KB the bridge refuses (the task still
travels as argv to the peer); tell the peer to read the file itself instead.
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> --task-file brief.mdRead Gotchas below before your first run — most "it looks stuck" moments are the peer thinking.
Gotchas
- Thinking looks like hanging — it isn't. Before its first action, and between actions, a
peer often reasons for one to a few minutes. Some peers emit
· thinking… ~Nk tokensheartbeats with a climbing count; others show steady· exec:/· tool:action lines. That is the peer working. Do not interrupt, kill, or restart it while output is flowing — step in only if the stream goes fully silent for a long stretch. - The peer's final answer comes after the
── <peer> done ──marker. Everything before it is live reasoning and actions; read the stream, but treat the post-marker text as the answer. One thing can follow the answer: an── <peer> artifacts ──list, when the peer wrote files into its own private session directory instead of the repo (agy's generated images do this). Those paths are real files — copy what you want to keep into the project. - A peer's report on its own output is a claim, not a result. Verify with your own tools before relaying it; peers do state that every constraint was met when it wasn't.
- Sessions persist per conversation, per peer, per thread. A new chat starts a fresh peer
session; within this chat, every call to the same peer (on the same thread —
mainunless you name one) continues the same one. Write follow-ups as continuations ("the parser you wrote drops trailing numbers — fix it and rerun the tests"), not as fresh, re-explained tasks. - One run at a time per thread. If a delegation fails immediately with "already has a run
in progress", another run is live on that thread — wait for it, or use your own
--threadlabel. (After a crash the stale lock is detected and cleared automatically.)
Reasoning effort
The peer runs at a reasoning level — high by default. To run it harder or lighter, pass
--effort:
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> --effort <level> "your task"Levels are low · medium · high · xhigh · max (low → fast and cheap, max → think as hard
as possible). Translate what the user asks into the nearest level — e.g. "think hard / be
thorough" → high or xhigh; "go all out" → max; "quick / rough / don't overthink it" →
low. If the user says nothing about effort, omit the flag (you get high). You always pass these
canonical levels; the bridge maps each to the peer's own setting (some peers cap lower — that's
expected, and shown in the run header).
Model
On a fresh thread the bridge sends no model flag — the peer runs on whatever its own CLI is configured to use (a thread that already pinned a model reuses it — see below). That's the right call whenever the user doesn't bring up models. Pick one only when the user names a model or clearly asks for a capability ("strongest", "cheapest"):
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> --model <model> "your task"--model takes one peer-independent value — top, the peer's strongest coding model — or
a model's short name (e.g. sonnet, luna); each peer's lineup lives in
references/<peer>.md, and the adapter translates the name into the peer CLI's own model
argument. Anything it doesn't recognize is passed to the peer CLI verbatim, so exact or
brand-new model IDs work too. Normalize the user's wording yourself: "Claude's best model" → --model top;
"codex astr" (typo) → --model astra; "codex's cheapest" → the cheapest model named in
that peer's reference notes.
Model and effort are independent knobs: --model picks the model, --effort how hard
it reasons. Words like "quick", "thorough", "don't overthink" move effort only —
don't infer a cheaper model from them unless the user also expresses a model or cost
preference.
An explicit model sticks to the thread. Once you pass --model, follow-ups on that
thread reuse the same model automatically — don't repeat the flag. Passing a different
model later switches the thread (the header spells out switching model old→new). A reset
clears the choice along with the session.
Parallel delegations (threads)
By default all your calls to a peer share one session — that's what makes follow-ups work. But if several delegations to the same peer run at the same time (e.g. you spawn helper subagents that each call the bridge), they must not share that session: subagents inherit your chat id, so without separation they'd resume each other's context and overwrite each other's state. Give each parallel lane its own thread label:
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> --thread worker-1 "task A"
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> --thread worker-2 "task B"- When you spawn helper subagents that delegate, put a unique
--thread <label>in the exact command you hand each helper — the helper can't tell on its own that it's one of many. - Several models of one peer ("ask codex sol and astra to review X") need one thread
per model, even when run one after the other — e.g.
--thread review-sol --model sol,--thread review-astra --model astra. On a shared thread the second model would resume the first's session and replace its model. - Labels are yours to choose —
worker-1,review,tests(must start with a letter or digit). - Each thread is its own persistent peer session — follow-ups on the same label continue it.
- A helper that needs a clean slate should reset only its own lane —
<peer> reset --thread <its-label>— never a bare<peer> reset, which clears every thread's session for that peer.
Brief the peer like the capable engineer it is
- Hand it substantial chunks, not micro-steps. A whole feature, a module, a refactor, a real debugging task. Don't break work into tiny one-function asks — that wastes round-trips and badly underuses it. Assume it can own a meaty, well-scoped piece end to end and verify its own work before reporting back.
- Give complete context up front: the goal, the files that matter, constraints, and how to know it succeeded (which tests, expected behavior). The more complete the brief, the bigger the chunk it can take.
- State the scope clearly so it neither overreaches nor stops short.
Four ways to use a peer — pick what fits
- Implementer — give it the work; let it build, test, and report.
- Independent reviewer — fresh eyes on something you or it wrote: "Review the changes in X for correctness and edge cases; be specific."
- Adversarial red-team — have it try to break a design or find the worst failure: "Find inputs where this parser returns the wrong answer."
- Thinking partner — ask for opinions on an idea, design, approach, or plan; it can brainstorm, critique, suggest alternatives, or validate your plan: "Here's my plan for the migration. What would you do differently?"
For reviews, ask pointed questions and judge the critique on its merits — push back when you disagree, take it when it's right. Two strong models disagreeing is the point.
Starting a peer over
A peer's session persists per conversation, so by default you continue it. But if it gets stuck or confused, or the user says anything like "start a new session and try again", run the reset yourself and then re-issue the task — the user shouldn't have to type any command:
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> reset # this peer, all threads
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" <peer> reset --thread <label> # one thread only
bash "$HOME/.agents/skills/agent-bridge/scripts/bridge.sh" reset # every peer, this chatYour next call starts that peer from a clean slate. Other conversations are untouched. A reset refuses while an affected delegation is live, so it won't wipe a run mid-flight — but don't reset while you're spawning parallel helpers, as a brand-new thread can still slip through.
Your part of the loop
- After the peer reports, verify independently with your own tools (read the files, run the tests) before accepting. Don't rubber-stamp.
- If something's off, delegate the fix in the same session, or fix it yourself — your call.
- When it's done and verified, give the human a short summary: what was built, what you checked, and anything still open.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

