Related: I've been finding a lot of success (defined as more autonomy with less quality dropoff) with team-based workflows.
A lot of evidence for this.
- Adaptive Auto-Harness: Sustained Self-Improvement for Agentic System Deployment on Open-Ended Task Streams (https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01770) talks about multi-agent, role-based adaptive harnesses collaborating on non-homogeneous workstreams
The amount of breakthroughs this could deliver. Previously we should’ve established R&D departments, prepare multi-cultural teams, all to work on a single project. Today? I can see a domain expert, guiding antigravity and delivering fast.
It is not clear to me how or if /teamwork is any different than Claude dynamic workflows.
Antigravity as a harness feels very behind. There's not even any auto mode. And they announced /goal long after I ever felt the need to use it in CC or Codex.
There is (--mode auto), but you can't access it without restarting the harness. Even then, you'll get plenty of mother-may-I showstoppers. I had to resort to using the --dangerously-skip-permissions option to get anything done. The good news is that Carbon is a pretty awesome model once you do get it working.
Seems likely that the people who maintain Antigravity don't use Antigravity to do it. It has too many rough edges that would be trivial to fix if someone actually noticed them.
I think the authors also used Antigravity to write this article, because it sucks at communicating whatever point it’s trying to make. I think it’s something like “We did the OpenAI 100 problems thing, but across many disciplines, and in collaboration with the experts instead of just dumping results on the world, and we also made the tooling feature available,” but I’m not sure because it has that distinct Gemini flavor of packing in so many low-level details that the actual point becomes entirely obscured.
It is a shame that Gemini prose has become too detail dense in recent releases. Its prose was one of its distinct advantages over Claude with that annoying Claude speak...
It seems like they already announced /teamwork earlier [0], but now just announced that they got some scientific results out of it. They probably intentionally want to keep this low key, but in that case it's not clear why announce it at all.
It sounds like they're saying they now offer an option, "/teamwork", that will throw more computer at a problem by choosing a team and a workflow that you the user don't have to (or get to?) know about.
Interesting that a Rust re-write pre optimisation was 30% slower than the C++ equivalent.
I wonder if they optimised the C++ it would actually have more speed benefits than the Rust alternative. Only they can't claim it's a Rust rewrite like every other company at the moment.
I’m not sure if they are that far behind given the integration forced into every single one of their consumer products but yeah their developer LLM focus has been very disappointing.
I still don’t understand why they don’t use their massive market position to give more value to Google workspace customers to have more access to their models for teasing higher value plans. The existing credits timeout before they even build a playwright scraper.
Related: I've been finding a lot of success (defined as more autonomy with less quality dropoff) with team-based workflows.
A lot of evidence for this.
- Adaptive Auto-Harness: Sustained Self-Improvement for Agentic System Deployment on Open-Ended Task Streams (https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01770) talks about multi-agent, role-based adaptive harnesses collaborating on non-homogeneous workstreams
- team-solve (https://github.com/guregodevo/memdoor/tree/main/examples/wor...) team of small models beats Fable on LiveCodeBench
- Agensh paper (https://arxiv.org/html/2609.26781v1) also talks about "role-playing agents to study autonomous cooperation"
All show that role-based, multi-agent setups improve performance.
The amount of breakthroughs this could deliver. Previously we should’ve established R&D departments, prepare multi-cultural teams, all to work on a single project. Today? I can see a domain expert, guiding antigravity and delivering fast.
It is not clear to me how or if /teamwork is any different than Claude dynamic workflows.
Antigravity as a harness feels very behind. There's not even any auto mode. And they announced /goal long after I ever felt the need to use it in CC or Codex.
Auto mode has been there for few versions, and recently (1-2 days ago?) became the default
There is (--mode auto), but you can't access it without restarting the harness. Even then, you'll get plenty of mother-may-I showstoppers. I had to resort to using the --dangerously-skip-permissions option to get anything done. The good news is that Carbon is a pretty awesome model once you do get it working.
Seems likely that the people who maintain Antigravity don't use Antigravity to do it. It has too many rough edges that would be trivial to fix if someone actually noticed them.
This doesn't tell me how to use it.
I think the authors also used Antigravity to write this article, because it sucks at communicating whatever point it’s trying to make. I think it’s something like “We did the OpenAI 100 problems thing, but across many disciplines, and in collaboration with the experts instead of just dumping results on the world, and we also made the tooling feature available,” but I’m not sure because it has that distinct Gemini flavor of packing in so many low-level details that the actual point becomes entirely obscured.
It is a shame that Gemini prose has become too detail dense in recent releases. Its prose was one of its distinct advantages over Claude with that annoying Claude speak...
It seems like they already announced /teamwork earlier [0], but now just announced that they got some scientific results out of it. They probably intentionally want to keep this low key, but in that case it's not clear why announce it at all.
[0]: https://antigravity.google/blog/teamwork-when-ai-becomes-a-r...
It sounds like they're saying they now offer an option, "/teamwork", that will throw more computer at a problem by choosing a team and a workflow that you the user don't have to (or get to?) know about.
> I think the authors also used Antigravity to write this article, because it sucks at communicating whatever point it’s trying to make.
The pattern seems to be pervasive at Google. Too much Ai, not enough human, top-down orders
Interesting that a Rust re-write pre optimisation was 30% slower than the C++ equivalent.
I wonder if they optimised the C++ it would actually have more speed benefits than the Rust alternative. Only they can't claim it's a Rust rewrite like every other company at the moment.
Google is missing LLMs the way that Microsoft and Intel missed cell phones.
I’m not sure if they are that far behind given the integration forced into every single one of their consumer products but yeah their developer LLM focus has been very disappointing.
I still don’t understand why they don’t use their massive market position to give more value to Google workspace customers to have more access to their models for teasing higher value plans. The existing credits timeout before they even build a playwright scraper.
Sloppification is now called "advancing". That may even be innovative.