# Run a pool of coding agents that only merge fixes proven red then green

> A maintainer ran a small office of Claude Code workers against 13 Rust repos for five days and got about 170 pull requests merged, then open sourced the tool as ApolloOffice.

- URL: https://paperchasewebb.ai/bots/marketplace/items/run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green/
- Type: Agent use case pack
- Category: Vibe coding
- By: PaperChaseWebb
- Works with: Claude Code (named in the listing); Plain .md
- Price: Free USD
- Difficulty: Advanced
- Setup time: 1 hr
- Time to result: One working session
- Format: Markdown (.md) file, run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green.md
- Version: 1.0, updated 2026-10-25
- License: Personal and commercial use. Credit the original source when you share the workflow.

## What you end up with

Most rejected fixes turned out to be a broken build image, not bad code, so check your environment before blaming the model.

## What you get

- A plain-language summary of the workflow
- A fill-in prompt template
- What to watch out for
- A link to the original source

## Who it is for

Builders who already use AI agents and want a proven workflow they can copy into their own project.

## Tools needed

- Claude Code (claude -p workers): each with its own system prompt and a small set of MCP tools
- Haiku: finding issues, triage and review
- Sonnet: writing the fixes
- Rust service plus Docker builds: verifies every fix and runs builds locally or over ssh
- You need: An AI coding agent or chat model
- You need: A small real task to try it on

Cost to run: Free with the agent plan you already use.

## How it works

1. **One worker per role: find issue, triage, fix, review.** One worker per role: find issue, triage, fix, review. Expected: Done before you move to the next step.
2. **Require a failing test that reproduces the bug before any fix.** Require a failing test that reproduces the bug before any fix. Expected: Done before you move to the next step.
3. **Run the test without and with the fix; only accept red then green plus.** Run the test without and with the fix; only accept red then green plus a full passing suite. Expected: Done before you move to the next step.
4. **Keep credentials local and push through a mirror.** Keep credentials local and push through a mirror. Expected: Done before you move to the next step.
5. **Label every AI-generated commit and PR.** Label every AI-generated commit and PR. Expected: Done before you move to the next step.

## Sample prompt: Workflow template (Claude Code (claude -p workers), Haiku)

```
Apply this workflow to [your project]:
1. One worker per role: find issue, triage, fix, review.
2. Require a failing test that reproduces the bug before any fix.
3. Run the test without and with the fix; only accept red then green plus a full passing suite.
4. Keep credentials local and push through a mirror.
5. Label every AI-generated commit and PR.
Stop and ask me before anything irreversible: deploys, payments, sends or deletes.
```

Adapted by PaperChaseWebb. Not the original author's prompt.

## Free preview of run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green.md

````markdown
# Run a pool of coding agents that only merge fixes proven red then green

PaperChase agent use case (free feed entry), version 1.0. Source: [u/QueasyCat3096 on r/ClaudeCode](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x9oxfg/my_claude_code_workers_got_170_prs_merged_in_five/), 2026-10-19.

## What they did

Workers pick up GitHub issues, reproduce each bug with a failing test, write the fix, run CI and open a PR. The surrounding service does not trust the model: it runs the new test without the fix and with it, and only lets a PR through if it goes red, then green, and the full test suite passes. Pushes go through a local mirror so the GitHub token stays on the machine. Every commit and PR is labeled as AI generated.

## Worth knowing

Most rejected fixes turned out to be a broken build image, not bad code, so check your environment before blaming the model. Small models handled most of the pipeline. A commenter asked who actually reviews 170 merges; the author said most are 20 to 30 lines and get a quick human look plus an automated reviewer. AGPL-3.0 license. The author also warns against releasing many releases in one night to auto-updating users.
````

## Worth knowing

- Most rejected fixes turned out to be a broken build image, not bad code, so check your environment before blaming the model. Small models handled most of the pipeline. A commenter asked who actually reviews 170 merges; the author said most are 20 to 30 lines and get a quick human look plus an automated reviewer. AGPL-3.0 license. The author also warns against releasing many releases in one night to auto-updating users.
- Figures are as reported by the original author and were not re-measured by us.

## Questions

**Where does this come from?** A public post credited to u/QueasyCat3096 on r/ClaudeCode. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x9oxfg/my_claude_code_workers_got_170_prs_merged_in_five/

**Is it free?** Yes. Feed entries are free to read and download.

## How to get it

Free sample. Download it directly at https://paperchasewebb.ai/bots/marketplace/items/run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green/, no signup.

Seller: PaperChaseWebb Inc., mgmt@paperchasewebb.com