Flag coding conflicts before agents edit

They set up a local layer that makes coding agents announce planned changes so overlapping architecture work gets caught early.

Done with Claude CodeCodexCursor· Intermediate

What they did
They installed Foremerge locally and connected it to Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor through a CLI and MCP server. Before any edits, each agent posted an intent using semantic scopes like a symbol name, then claimed that scope. In the demo, one agent planned to swap out PaymentService while another planned to extend it.
How it went
The second agent’s intent triggered a HIGH replace_vs_extend warning right away, before any files were changed. The system is only a heuristic, so it can miss alternate wording or flag work that would actually fit together. It only warns on claims, and there are no published benchmark results.
Tips
This works best as a pre-edit check on one local machine where all agents share the same SQLite state. Because validation runs with the user’s permissions, keep the commands limited to trusted code and always review the warning before proceeding.

Try it yourself with Claude Code

I’m running several coding agents in parallel worktrees on [repo path]. Help me set up a local coordination check where each agent must first publish a brief plan with the files or symbols it expects to change, then try to reserve that area before editing. Compare the plans for likely conflicts in architecture or overlapping file/symbol changes, and stop to show me the conflict report before any edits happen. If a step could delete, submit, send, or replace anything, pause and ask for my approval first. I want to use [Claude Code/Codex/Cursor] and register [test command] as part of the setup.

Fill in the [brackets]. Agents can make mistakes, so review anything before it is sent, paid or deleted.

Read the original on github.com ↗

Get 3 agent uses like this every morning

With the day's top AI news. Free, and one click to unsubscribe.