Arcgentic is a harness engineering layer for AI coding agents. It turns ad-hoc prompting into a gated engineering workflow.
中文文档 -> README.zh-CN.md
Arcgentic helps Codex and Claude Code run software work as a disciplined sequence: clarify the idea, plan the work, build it, self-audit it, optionally run a realistic user test, audit it independently, then close only when the evidence is good enough.
It is for people who already use AI coding tools, but do not want every session to depend on memory, vibes, or a lucky prompt.
Arcgentic started as the development discipline behind
Moirai, a real agent project where AI
coding had to survive 30+ strict development rounds, repeated NEEDS_FIX
audits, planned handoffs, role boundaries, self-audit, external audit, and
recoverable session state.
This plugin packages the patterns that survived that work so Codex and Claude Code users can apply them to their own complex projects. It is not a new coding agent, and it does not copy Moirai-specific phase numbers, fact shapes, or runtime internals. It is the workflow layer extracted from real agent development.
Arcgentic sits in the harness layer around a coding agent.
Codex and Claude Code are the agents. Arcgentic is the engineering harness that gives those agents roles, handoffs, stop states, audit gates, and evidence. This is the same direction people describe as moving from vibe coding toward agentic engineering: the important work is not only prompting the model, but building the workflow around the model so its output can be checked, routed, and trusted.
Related reading:
- Martin Fowler / Thoughtworks: Harness engineering for coding agent users
- Andrej Karpathy's broader "vibe coding -> agentic engineering" framing
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is it? | A harness engineering layer for Codex / Claude Code: roles, handoffs, audits, stop states, and pass/fix gates around the coding agent. |
| What problem does it solve? | AI coding sessions drift: scope changes silently, context gets lost, tests are skipped, and "done" often means "the assistant said it is done." |
| Who should use it? | Heavy Codex / Claude Code users, agent builders, AI-native teams, and people doing complex multi-round engineering work. |
| What does it add? | A repeatable gated workflow with automated role dispatch: planning, dev self-audit, optional user testing, external audit, and closeout. |
| What does it not do? | It does not replace your judgment, your tests, or your review process. It makes those steps harder to skip. |
| Platform | V2 status | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Codex | Complete V2 | Verified in a real Codex project workflow, including automatic Orchestrator thread setup and role-thread dispatch. |
| Claude Code | Complete V2 experimental | Not yet verified in a real Claude Code session. |
Codex is the best current experience. In the verified Codex path, the current
project conversation becomes Orchestrator; Arcgentic then creates or reuses
the role threads, names them, sends the right role prompt, waits for their
return signal, and dispatches the next role without manual thread switching.
Claude Code support is available as an experimental version and should be treated as a real workflow candidate, not as proven production behavior yet.
| Channel | Status | Use it for |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub Release | Published v2.0.0 |
Release notes, source archive, and verification context. |
| PyPI | Published arcgentic==2.0.0 |
Python CLI: gates, V2 state helpers, Claude Code broker, and audit tooling. |
| npm | Published arcgentic@2.0.0 |
Plugin asset bundle and Codex local install helper. |
| Claude Code plugin marketplace | Manifest ready | Main Claude Code install path; V2 remains experimental until real-session verification. |
git clone https://github.com/Arch1eSUN/Arcgentic.git arcgentic
cd arcgentic
bash scripts/install-codex-local.sh --plugin-root .Then start in a saved project workspace and ask:
Use Arcgentic to build this idea: <your idea>
Use this if you want the Arcgentic plugin assets through npm:
npm install -g arcgentic
arcgentic install-codex-localThe npm package is a zero-dependency plugin bundle and Codex local install helper. It includes the skills, agents, scripts, schemas, templates, and platform manifests. The Python CLI is still published separately on PyPI.
/plugin marketplace add Arch1eSUN/Arcgentic
/plugin install arcgentic@arc-studio
Then start inside your project:
Use Arcgentic to build this idea: <your idea>
For Claude Code V2 experimental workflow setup:
arcgentic claude-code-broker install-hooks \
--settings .claude/settings.local.json \
--state .agentic-rounds/state.yamlUse this if you only need the command-line helper:
pipx install arcgentic
arcgentic --helpWithout Arcgentic:
User: Build a small expense splitter.
AI: writes code
AI: says it is done
User: later discovers missing edge cases, unclear scope, no audit trail
With Arcgentic:
User idea
-> current conversation becomes Orchestrator
-> Orchestrator creates or reuses Planner and sends the planning prompt
-> Planner returns the plan to Orchestrator
-> Orchestrator creates or reuses Developer and sends the dev prompt
-> Developer implements and returns a self-audit
-> Orchestrator dispatches optional Test only if realistic use needs it
-> Orchestrator creates or reuses Auditor and sends the audit prompt
-> Auditor returns PASS / NEEDS_FIX / AUDIT_INCOMPLETE
-> Orchestrator routes the next step
The important difference is not that the AI writes more text. The important difference is that each role has a job, each stage has a stop condition, and "done" is not accepted until the workflow can explain why.
When you start Arcgentic with a new idea, the current session becomes
Orchestrator. Before it plans or builds, it should judge whether the idea is a
small fast project or a larger project that needs stronger review. Then it
recommends one project-level mode and asks you to confirm or override it:
| Mode | Choose it when | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|
| Single session, multiple agents | You want the fastest run and a smaller demo surface. | Faster completion, weaker audit isolation. Planner, Developer, Test, and Auditor run inside the current Orchestrator session as fixed named role agents and are reused across rounds. |
| Multiple sessions, multiple threads | You want stronger separation between planning, development, testing, and audit. | Slower completion, stronger audit discipline. Planner, Developer, Test, and Auditor use fixed project threads. |
The choice is made once for the project. Arcgentic should not ask again every round unless you start a new project or intentionally reset the workflow.
- One long AI coding session tries to remember everything.
- The assistant mixes planning, coding, review, and closeout in one context.
- Fixes are sometimes treated as audit work.
- The next session has to reconstruct what happened.
- "Pass" often means the assistant felt confident.
- The current session is the Orchestrator.
- Planner, Developer, Test, and Auditor are separate roles.
- Developer owns building, repairs, and self-audit.
- Auditor owns stricter independent review.
- Test is used only when realistic user behavior needs separate verification.
- Closeout happens after the project/phase conditions are satisfied.
Arcgentic V2 follows this shape:
idea
-> brainstorm and planning
-> round handoff
-> development
-> developer self-audit
-> optional user-test
-> external audit
-> pass or fix
-> next round, next phase, or closeout
The roles are fixed:
| Role | Owns |
|---|---|
| Orchestrator | Routing, role dispatch, waiting, and deciding which role acts next. |
| Planner | Brainstorming, project plan, phase/round structure, handoffs, and closeout decisions. |
| Developer | Building, fixes, local verification, and self-audit. |
| Test | Realistic user/session testing when the plan says it is needed. |
| Auditor | Independent evidence review and PASS / NEEDS_FIX / AUDIT_INCOMPLETE decisions. |
Arcgentic does not create a new role identity every round. The role names stay
fixed: Orchestrator, Planner, Developer, Test, and Auditor.
Codex V2 is the verified path.
In Codex, Arcgentic can run either V2 mode.
The verified automation is:
User starts in a project conversation
-> Arcgentic marks that conversation as Orchestrator
-> Orchestrator asks for or records the project mode
-> Orchestrator creates or reuses the fixed role thread/agent
-> Orchestrator sends the role-specific prompt and artifact pointers
-> the role finishes and actively returns to Orchestrator
-> Orchestrator consumes the return and dispatches the next role
The user should not have to manually create Planner, Developer, Test, or Auditor threads in the verified Codex flow.
Single session, multiple agents:
Current project thread = Orchestrator
-> Planner role agent
-> Developer role agent
-> optional Test role agent
-> Auditor role agent
-> Orchestrator continues
Multiple sessions, multiple threads:
Current project thread = Orchestrator
-> create/reuse Planner thread and send Planner prompt
-> Planner returns to Orchestrator
-> create/reuse Developer thread and send Developer prompt
-> Developer returns to Orchestrator
-> create/reuse optional Test thread only when needed
-> create/reuse Auditor thread and send Auditor prompt
-> Auditor returns to Orchestrator
In multiple-thread mode, the Orchestrator should sleep after dispatching a role. It wakes only when the role returns its result. That prevents the Orchestrator from guessing when work is done or dispatching duplicate auditors.
In single-session mode, the Orchestrator stays in the same thread and runs the named role agents directly. The role names still stay exact: Planner, Developer, Test, and Auditor. Later rounds reuse those same role identities.
Use Codex V2 when you want the strongest current Arcgentic experience.
Claude Code V2 is complete as an experimental version, but it has not yet been verified in a real Claude Code session.
The intended behavior is the same:
current session = Orchestrator
-> create/reuse Planner session and send Planner prompt
-> Planner returns
-> create/reuse Developer session and send Developer prompt
-> Developer returns
-> optional Test only when needed
-> create/reuse Auditor session and send Auditor prompt
-> Auditor returns
Claude Code experimental mode aims to reach the same no-manual-routing behavior through the session broker. That full automation has not yet been verified in a real Claude Code session. If automatic return does not work in your setup, use explicit copy-back: paste the role's return message into the Orchestrator so the workflow can continue.
Use Claude Code V2 when you want to try the same discipline in Claude Code and are comfortable with experimental workflow behavior.
Use Arcgentic for:
- frequent Codex / Claude Code users who run real engineering work through AI;
- agent builders who need clear role boundaries and handoffs;
- small AI-native engineering teams;
- complex repos, multi-round development, refactors, and agent products;
- work where you need to prove AI-written code went through planning, testing, and audit before it was accepted;
- sessions where you want future you to understand what happened.
Arcgentic is intentionally heavier than normal prompting. If the task is not substantial, risky, or multi-step, the workflow can feel like using a full engineering gate for a tiny change.
Do not use Arcgentic for:
- a one-line command;
- a tiny copy edit;
- quick experiments where auditability does not matter;
- small tasks where normal Codex or Claude Code prompting is enough;
- exploratory questions with no development goal;
- work where you do not care about auditability.
A clean run should leave behind:
- a readable plan;
- a development result;
- a developer self-audit;
- a test report when the round needed realistic testing;
- an external audit verdict;
- a clear pass/fix/closeout decision.
These artifacts matter because they make the workflow inspectable. You can come back later and see what was planned, what changed, what was checked, and why the round was allowed to close.
Current evidence:
- Codex V2 has been exercised in a real project workflow.
- V2 completion evidence is recorded in the repository.
- Simulated user workflow evidence is recorded in the repository.
Planned adoption assets:
- short Codex demo;
- example project with before/after comparison;
- Claude Code experimental run notes after real-session verification.
Arcgentic V2 should reuse fixed role sessions. You should see only:
Orchestrator
Planner
Developer
Test
Auditor
If you see R1 Developer, R2 Auditor, or similar names, that is not the
intended V2 behavior.
The Orchestrator should stop after dispatching a role. It should resume only when the role returns information. If it keeps dispatching while a role is still working, the workflow is not following V2.
Audit should not loop forever. Auditor decides PASS, NEEDS_FIX, or
AUDIT_INCOMPLETE. If the evidence is missing and Developer can repair it, the
workflow should go back to Developer. If the same audit gap cannot be resolved
by another audit pass, it should stop instead of creating another auditor loop.
Test is optional. Planner decides whether the current round needs realistic user/session testing. Many small rounds should go directly from Developer self-audit to Auditor.
| Area | Status |
|---|---|
| Codex V2 | Complete and real-workflow verified. |
| Claude Code V2 | Complete experimental version; real-session verification pending. |
| Fixed roles | Complete. |
| Optional Test role | Complete. |
| Developer self-audit | Complete. |
| External audit | Complete. |
| Closed-project status no-op | Complete. |
| README onboarding | Updated for adoption-first use. |
| npm bundle | Published as arcgentic@2.0.0. |
Near-term:
- verify Claude Code V2 in a real Claude Code session;
- publish a small example project;
- add a short demo walkthrough;
- collect issue-template feedback from first users.
Longer-term:
- harden V2 across more project types;
- improve example libraries for common workflows;
- keep the README focused on adoption and first-run clarity.
Open an issue if:
- install failed;
- the workflow was confusing;
- a role did the wrong job;
- your project did not fit the workflow;
- Claude Code experimental mode behaved differently from the docs.
Useful feedback includes:
- which platform you used: Codex or Claude Code;
- what you asked Arcgentic to build;
- where the workflow got stuck;
- whether the issue was planning, development, test, audit, or closeout.
MIT - Copyright (c) 2026 Arc Studio