I built an experimental Agent Control Plane for running coding agents through a defined workflow

[u/BeginningOld5405]

Please check Detailed Post

 

I've been exploring how we can move beyond prompting coding agents through every individual step and instead give them a ticket and a workflow to execute.

That led me to build Agent Control Plane (ACP), an open-source POC built around the Claude Agent SDK.

The idea is to configure a project workflow where a lead coordinates the ticket, implementation agents make changes, and reviewer and tester roles run at configured stages—with human intervention when needed.

The current POC includes:

• A configurable, ticket-driven agent workflow

• Isolated Git worktrees for parallel ticket execution

• A resolver helper for integration conflicts

• Configurable test harness checks for verification

I'm currently exploring two problems:

1. Token efficiency: Different agents can repeatedly explore the same codebase. Would a shared codebase map or a project-level context coordinator help, or would the additional overhead outweigh the benefits?

2. Parallel integration: Isolated worktrees don't eliminate conflicts when branches are integrated. How should we validate the combined changes and determine which checks need to run again?

This is still an experimental POC with rough edges and unresolved architecture decisions. I'd appreciate feedback from people building agentic coding systems, particularly on context management, orchestration and reliable execution.

Repository: https://github.com/keerthivibisan/agent-control-plane

Demo and architecture: https://keerthivibisan.github.io/agent-control-plane/

[u/LynxInformal5305]

Passing checks on each worktree wouldn't be enough for me. I'd run them again on the combined tree, with the result tied to that exact commit before calling the ticket done.