Swarm, DAG, dispatch, and team-agent tools for breaking coding work into parallel agent tasks.
Orchestration is the rung above agent management. Where a manager runs the sessions you decide to spawn, an orchestrator decides which sessions exist in the first place.
decomposition. Take one prompt ("rebuild the auth flow") and split it into N sub-tasks appropriate to parallel work.
dispatch. Spawn agents — locally via worktrees, or remotely on cloud workers — and assign sub-tasks.
supervision. Watch for stuck agents, retry, escalate, or kill. Some define this as a DAG with dependencies between sub-tasks.
merging. Take the parallel diffs and stitch them into one branch / PR. This is the part that breaks most often.
| local orchestrator | cloud orchestrator | |
|---|---|---|
| runs on | your machine | vendor infrastructure |
| isolation | worktrees | containers / VMs per agent |
| review unit | diff in your editor | PR or deploy preview |
| cost model | your existing subscriptions | per-task or per-hour billing |
| typical scope | 2-8 sub-tasks per prompt | end-to-end feature |
- large fan-out work — one task that splits cleanly into many parallel pieces (e.g. migrate 30 files)
- unattended runs — overnight batches you do not want to babysit one terminal at a time
- DAGs with real dependencies — task B genuinely needs task A's output before it can start
- team policy — central place to apply rate limits, model pinning, audit logs
Orchestration multiplies your throughput and your review surface area in lockstep. Four agents working in parallel produce four diffs you have to read. If your bottleneck is review (it usually is) then orchestration moves the bottleneck rather than removing it.
The classic mistake: reach for swarms before the local prompt-to-diff-to-merge loop works. More agents do not fix a broken loop, they just generate more diffs to abandon.
- does it dispatch work or run the local workspace?
- does it keep humans in the review loop?
- does it require a server, cloud, or special runtime?
- does it produce reviewable worktrees or opaque output?
Pane is the local cockpit where terminal agents run and get reviewed. Orchestrators can be complementary if they launch CLI agents.
| tool | constraint | what pane does instead |
|---|---|---|
| Astro | DAG dispatch across hosts. fire-and-forget. | complementary; Pane is where the dispatched agents run locally |
| AI Team OS | Claude Code only. heavy templates and dashboards. | lighter local cockpit for any CLI agent |
| DeepSteve | browser UI. self-hosted PTY server. | native desktop app, no server |
| AgentsMesh | remote AgentPods over gRPC. infra-heavy. | local-first, no provisioning required |
| Shard | auto-dispatches subtasks; reduces human review. | keeps the human in the review loop on every diff |
Reaching for swarm orchestration before the local review loop works. More agents produce more diffs, and those diffs still need ownership.
Want the local cockpit before adding orchestration on top? Download Pane.