Comment by smrtinsert 2 days ago
Curious what you think of sub agents, don't they still consume a massive amount of tokens compared to simply running in main context? I'm skeptical of any process that starts massively delegating to sub agents. I'm on Pro and don't think its worth upgrading to 200 a month just to not pollute main context.
Take a look at my example here - having a bunch of sub-agents perform a task consumed 50,000+ tokens each across 5 subtasks, because each one had to consume duplicate information. https://simonwillison.net/2025/Oct/11/sub-agents/
But that's down to the way Claude Code has implemented it? If I code this myself I could engineer so that the subagents don't have overlapping context with the orchestrator.
Also, memory itself can be a tool the subagent calls to retrieve only the stuff it needs.
In my opinion, subagents (or more generally, "agents as tools" as a pattern) are an order-of-magnitude level feature. Soon every CLI agent will have them as a first-class feature (you can get them via custom scripting right now with and CLI agent, albeit less ergonomically).
The ability to isolate context-noisy subtasks (like agentically searching through a large codebase by grepping through dozens of irrelevant files to find the one you actually need) unlocks much longer-running loops, and therefore much more complex tasks.
And you don't need a system this complicated to take advantage of it. Literally just a simple "codebase-searcher" agent (and Claude can vibe the agent definition for you) is enough to see the benefit first-hand. Once you see it, if you're like me, you will see opportunities for subagents everywhere.