Attention Deficit · weekly note · serial AD-W30-7F2 Cursor experiment · July 20, 2026
Agent swarms · the second attempt

The swarm isn’t the speed.

Cursor sent fleets of agents after SQLite. The second run worked because each agent had less context to hold.

Switch the system at right. The old swarm confuses activity with progress. The redesign separates planning from implementation.
swarm://sqlite-from-manual
Interactive task tree for a multi-agent SQLite implementation A root specification delegates to planners, which delegate narrow tasks to workers. In old-swarm mode, extra red links and collisions appear. 835-PAGE SQLITE MANUAL one intention PLANNER A storage PLANNER B query PLANNER C runtime pager B-tree parser planner runtime tests SHARED FIELD GUIDE + DESIGN DOCS surprise becomes context for the next agent EVERYONE HOLDS THE WHOLE WORLD
merge conflicts<1,000 / 4 hours
final shape9 crates
held-out grade80% after 4 hours

Narrow workers execute. Planners keep architecture in view. Shared notes carry decisions across the fleet.

01 · activity ≠ progress

68,000 commits produced 70,000 merge conflicts

The old Grok run produced 68,000 commits in under two hours and more than 70,000 merge conflicts. Activity outran coordination.

old harnesspaused < 2 hours

68,000 commits

The swarm created 54 crates and three competing database packages. A total of 1,173 agents edited the most contested file and produced 7,771 conflicts.

commit activity
new harnessfull 4-hour run

Fewer than 1,000 conflicts

The second run settled on nine crates early. Its most contested file saw 47 conflicts, and the database scored 80% on held-out tests after four hours.

commit activity
Coordination catches conflicting decisions before they reach the merge queue.
02 · swarm repair manual

At machine tempo, ordinary teamwork breaks.

Cursor rebuilt ownership, review, merge queues, and shared decisions for a fleet peaking near 1,000 commits per second.

failure 01 · two realities

Two planners invent the same idea differently.

The codebase develops incompatible definitions of the same concept before either planner sees the other branch.

REPAIR → Keep design decisions with planners, then partition tasks so two planners don't decide the same question.
03 · model routing

Most tokens don't need your smartest model

Planners remove ambiguity. Once the instruction is explicit, cheaper workers can process most of the tokens without changing the destination.

new system · similar end quality
planning + judgment$1,192
worker fleet$9,373
frontier model · planner + workers
$10,565
baseline · one frontier model everywhere
In the all-frontier run, workers cost $9,373 because execution processed most of the tokens. Only a few decisions required frontier judgment.
04 · the abstraction shift
The unit of work becomes the spec.

Autocomplete raised the unit from character to line. Agents raised it from file to feature. A swarm turns an explicit description of intent into an entire task tree.

source language
“Implement SQLite from its manual.”
planner instructions
Architecture + bounded task tree
worker instructions
Narrow, explicit tasks
machine output
Code, tests, reviews, reconciled decisions
runtime checks
Compiler + held-out database tests
scarce input
A precise description of intent
SEMANTIC CHECK → A compiler preserves meaning at every stage. A swarm can change it at every stage, so the coordination system checks each handoff.

If specs are source code, who owns the intent?

Read the source