Archived project · Agent workflows
Botpenny
An archived experiment in agent coding and independent review.
Botpenny explored a repository workflow in which a coding agent took a task, an independent reviewer checked the result, and a human decided when work needed direction. GitHub held the discussions and revisions so another session could resume from a tested checkpoint.
The archived project demonstrated a repository map and an issue-to-merge workflow. The case study preserves a completed change to that workflow.
How it works
Claim one issue for one coding session
The archived repository tool recorded exclusive assignments through Git refs. Two coding agents could both see an available issue; the atomic claim decided which session got its worktree. The issue and its discussion explained what that agent is expected to deliver.
Review the commit that will merge
The coder pushed tested checkpoints and opened a linked PR. Another session reviewed a specific commit in a detached worktree. When it asked for changes, the coder replied with the completed revision’s SHA. The verdict had to cover that revision before merge.
Let a person decide when automation stops
A coder could ask for clarification or explain a blocker. The needs-human hold kept the claim but paused both queues until Ryan cleared the hold or closed the issue. After three answered change requests the reviewer could pass or halt for Ryan.
Inspect the workflow on the public site
The project’s site presented a repository map of roles and commands. Its workflow diagram showed human checkpoints and the revision loop. These documented the archived repository experiment.
Define the next business capabilities
The broader vision proposed agents in different harnesses sharing selected company context, approvals for spending, and budgets for purchases and model use. Those remained research directions. The archived demonstration covered the issue, worktree and review workflow.
A reviewer rediscovered a bug in the review queue
In one completed change a coder claimed an issue to build a resumable reviewer queue, pushed an implementation and opened a PR. An independent reviewer reproduced a defect: marking an assigned PR as draft made the reviewer pick up a second assignment. The coder changed the queue, added the draft-resumption regression, and posted the revised SHA. The reviewer passed that commit and the coder merged it. A human hold was available if the team needed a decision; this particular run resolved through review.
Project history
KeyPears’ hosted app was removed. Its federated identity and wallet ideas remained part of the company’s history. KeyPears archive record
A proposed successor for economic agents took the name Intelobot and then Botpenny. That naming record documents the archived project’s lineage. Project naming record
The coding and review sessions completed the queue repair described above. The project’s site documented the repository map and the checkpoints used by the team. Botpenny workflow