Active project · Agent workflows
Botpenny
See how one agent fixed Botpenny’s review queue and another checked the patch before it merged.
Botpenny uses its own repository workflow to build the product. A coding agent takes a task, an independent reviewer checks the result, and a human decides when work needs direction. GitHub holds the discussions and revisions so another session can resume from a tested checkpoint.
The public site lets visitors explore the repository map and follow the workflow from issue to merge. The example below comes from a completed change to that workflow.
How it works
Claim one issue for one coding session
The working repository tool records exclusive assignments through Git refs. Two coding agents may both see an available issue; the atomic claim decides which session gets its worktree. The issue and its discussion explain what that agent is expected to deliver.
Review the commit that will merge
The coder pushes tested checkpoints and opens a linked PR. Another session reviews a specific commit in a detached worktree. When it asks for changes, the coder replies with the completed revision’s SHA. The verdict must cover that revision before merge.
Let a person decide when automation stops
A coder can ask for clarification or explain a blocker. The needs-human hold keeps the claim but pauses both queues until Ryan clears the hold or closes the issue. After three answered change requests the reviewer can pass or halt for Ryan. A halted review and a successful merge are different outcomes.
Inspect the workflow on the public site
The repository map lets a reader select a role or command and inspect how work moves between them. The workflow diagram shows human checkpoints and the revision loop. This site is a readable view of a real repository workflow, not a claim that arbitrary business processes can already be automated.
Define the next business capabilities
The broader vision includes agents in different harnesses sharing selected company context, approvals for spending, and budgets for purchases and model use. These are research and product directions. The demonstrated implementation is 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 explains the lineage; it does not describe the current deployment. Project naming record
The coding and review sessions completed the queue repair described above. The public site exposes the repository map and the checkpoints used by the team. Botpenny workflow