Agent use case pack · Vibe coding

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

by PaperChaseWebb

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.

Preview card for Run a pool of coding agents that only merge fixes proven red then green
Works withClaude CodePlain .md
Price
Free
Difficulty
Advanced
Setup
1 hr
Format
.md file
Free sample

run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green.md · 3 KB · direct download, no signup

Download free

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.

Works with

Claude CodePlain .md

Solid chips: the agent is named in this listing's own tools list. Dashed chip: Plain Markdown, so it also pastes into other agents such as Grok Bot, Hermes, OpenClaw or Muse. We list those as compatible by format only, not as tested.

Tools needed

Claude Code (claude -p workers)each with its own system prompt and a small set of MCP tools
Haikufinding issues, triage and review
Sonnetwriting the fixes
Rust service plus Docker buildsverifies every fix and runs builds locally or over ssh
You needAn AI coding agent or chat model
You needA small real task to try it on

Cost to run: Free with the agent plan you already use.
Time to result: One working session

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 from the pack

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 the file

run-a-pool-of-coding-agents-that-only-merge-fixes-proven-red-then-green.md (excerpt)3 KB total
# 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.

Details

Version 1.0 · Updated Oct 25, 2026 · Markdown version of this page
License: Personal and commercial use. Credit the original source when you share the workflow. Download terms

vibe-codingclaude-codegithubcimulti-agentopen-sourcetesting