本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

cooperative-vibe-coding

Cooperative vibe coding across machines — real-time collaborative development with humans and AI agents. Covers current tools (Live Share, Code With Me, Zed, Cursor multiplayer, tmux), git-based async patterns, AI agent coordination, and the aspirational future of multi-human multi-agent development. Activate on: "pair programming", "vibe coding together", "collaborative coding", "mob programming", "remote pairing", "code together", "multiplayer coding", "Live Share", "Code With Me", "ensemble programming", "cooperative development". NOT for: building a real-time collaboration ENGINE (use real-time-collaboration-engine), git workflow mechanics (use git-best-practices), single-user AI coding assistance.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md13.1 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md372 B
  • examples/sample-input.json436 B
  • schemas/session-plan.schema.json2.4 KB
  • scripts/session_readiness.mjs7.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Cooperative Vibe Coding

Cooperative vibe coding scales Andrej Karpathy's "vibe coding" to multiple humans and AI agents working on the same codebase simultaneously across machines. Choose sync vs async collaboration modes based on team constraints and coordinate multiple AI agents without conflicts.

DECISION POINTS

1. Sync vs Async Mode Selection

Team Size ≤ 2, Same Timezone:

  • If high-complexity/unfamiliar code → Real-time collaboration (Live Share/Zed)
  • If independent features → Parallel worktrees + 30min sync points
  • If production-critical → True pair programming with shared screen

Team Size 3-5, Mixed Timezones:

  • If <4hr overlap → Async: PR-based with detailed commit messages
  • If 4-6hr overlap → Hybrid: 2hr sync blocks + async handoffs
  • If >6hr overlap → Mob programming with 10min rotations

Team Size >5:

  • Always async with clear ownership boundaries
  • Use AI agents for parallelization, humans for coordination

2. AI Agent Coordination Strategy

Single Feature, Multiple Devs:

If feature can split cleanly:
  → Each dev gets worktree + dedicated agent
  → File-level claims prevent conflicts
  
If feature is intertwined:
  → One shared agent, multiple human reviewers
  → Driver controls agent, navigator reviews output

Multiple Features, Multiple Agents:

If features share interfaces:
  → Designate interface owner, others depend on them
  → Sync interface changes before implementing
  
If features are independent:
  → Full isolation via worktrees/branches
  → Integration branch for final merge

3. Tool Selection Matrix

ScenarioPrimary ToolVoiceWhy
2 devs, Windows+Mac, <2hr sessionVS Code Live ShareDiscord/ZoomUniversal compatibility
2-4 devs, all Mac/Linux, >2hrZedBuilt-inLowest latency, native voice
Terminal-heavy workflowtmux/SSHExternalZero editor lag
Cross-timezone asyncGit + LoomAsync videoTime-shifted collaboration
AI-heavy sessionCursor/Claude CodeExternalAI-native editors

FAILURE MODES

"Merge Conflict Hell"

Symptoms: Integration takes longer than development, constant git conflicts, agents overwriting each other Diagnosis: No file-level coordination, sync points too infrequent (>45min), overlapping worktree scopes Fix: Implement file claiming (Port Daddy/manual), reduce sync to 25min, use git worktree for true isolation

"Spectator Sport Pairing"

Symptoms: Long silences, one person passive, AI generates everything while humans watch Diagnosis: No active collaboration protocol, unclear driver/navigator roles, agents doing too much Fix: 25min rotation timer, navigator must review AI output aloud, limit agent scope to functions not features

"Tool Configuration Spiral"

Symptoms: 30+ minutes setting up Live Share, audio issues, extension conflicts, "it works on my machine" Diagnosis: Over-optimization for perfect setup vs. practical collaboration Fix: 5-minute setup rule - if tools don't work quickly, fall back to screen share + voice

"Latency Death Spiral"

Symptoms: Frustrated typing, cursor lag >500ms, constant "wait, what did you just do?", productivity drops Diagnosis: Too many concurrent editors, poor network conditions, wrong tool for bandwidth Fix: Check network (ping test), reduce active collaborators to 2-3, switch to screen share if lag persists

"Context Fragmentation"

Symptoms: Frequent "wait, what are we building again?", duplicate work, misaligned implementation approaches Diagnosis: No shared mental model, insufficient sync points, parallel work without coordination Fix: Start each session with 5min goal alignment, document decisions in shared notes, 30min status checks

WORKED EXAMPLES

Scenario 1: 4 Devs, 3 Timezones, Authentication Feature

Setup: Alice (US West), Bob (US East), Chen (EU), David (Asia). Building JWT auth system with login/logout/refresh endpoints.

Decision Process:

  • Timezone overlap analysis: Alice+Bob have 8hr overlap, Chen has 4hr with both, David has 2hr with Chen only
  • Feature complexity: Auth requires shared types, middleware patterns - moderately intertwined
  • Tool selection: Mix of sync and async due to timezone constraints

Session Structure:

# Day 1: Alice + Bob (sync block, 2 hours)
# Set up auth architecture, define interfaces

git checkout -b feature/auth-system
# Create shared types and middleware stubs
# Alice: middleware/auth.ts, Bob: routes/auth.ts
# Sync every 30min, commit WIP to shared branch

# Handoff to Chen (async)
git commit -m "WIP: auth middleware scaffolded, routes stubbed
- AuthMiddleware interface defined in types/auth.ts  
- validateJWT() needs implementation
- TODO: Chen implement token refresh logic in refresh.ts"

Chen's Session (4 hours later):

git pull origin feature/auth-system
# Chen works alone with Claude agent
claude "implement JWT refresh token logic, follow patterns in middleware/auth.ts"
# Chen tests, commits with detailed message for David
git commit -m "Refresh token implemented
- Added refreshJWT() to middleware/auth.ts
- Created /auth/refresh endpoint  
- TODO: David add logout cleanup + session management"

Integration Issues Caught:

  • Alice's middleware expected userId field, Bob's routes provided user_id (snake_case vs camelCase)
  • Detected during Chen's session when TypeScript failed
  • Fixed by Chen, documented in commit message

What Novice Would Miss: No coordination protocol, each dev working in isolation, merge conflicts on shared files, interface mismatches discovered late.

What Expert Catches: Clear handoff messages, interface alignment checks, timezone-aware sync points, WIP commits that enable async collaboration.

Scenario 2: Real-time Debugging Session (Agent Deadlock)

Setup: Two devs + two AI agents hit deadlock during real-time collaboration. Both agents trying to modify same function simultaneously.

Symptoms Detected:

# Terminal output shows conflict:
[Claude-A] Modifying src/utils/validation.ts lines 23-45
[Claude-B] Modifying src/utils/validation.ts lines 30-50  
[Git] error: Your local changes would be overwritten by merge
[LiveShare] Conflict in validation.ts

Expert Decision Process:

  1. Immediate: Stop both agents (Ctrl+C in both terminals)
  2. Diagnose: Check git status and Live Share file locks - both agents claimed overlapping ranges
  3. Recover: Alice takes manual control, Bob's agent moves to different file
  4. Prevent: Implement file-level agent claiming going forward

Recovery Sequence:

# Alice (taking control)
git stash  # Save Claude-A's work
# Bob 
git checkout HEAD src/utils/validation.ts  # Discard Claude-B's changes

# Coordination
Alice: "I'll finish validation.ts manually, can your agent work on auth.ts instead?"
Bob: "Yes, redirecting Claude to authentication logic"

# Resume with isolation
# Alice: manual coding on validation.ts
# Bob's Claude: working on src/middleware/auth.ts
# Sync point in 25min to review both changes

What Novice Would Miss: Panic, try to force-merge conflicts, restart entire session, blame tools.

What Expert Catches: Quick isolation, manual override of agents, clear communication, prevention protocol for future.

QUALITY GATES

Before starting any cooperative coding session:

  • Voice channel established and tested - can both parties hear clearly without lag?
  • Work scope defined in 1 sentence - "We're implementing X feature with Y constraints"
  • File ownership mapped - who/which agent touches which directories/files?
  • Sync cadence agreed - every 25min for real-time, daily for async handoffs
  • AI agent boundaries set - which agent works where, who reviews output?
  • Conflict resolution protocol ready - who breaks ties on technical decisions?

During the session:

  • Changes committed every 30min max - no work exists only in memory/unsaved files
  • Integration tested before handoff - if async, does the code build/run for next person?
  • Decision rationale documented - why did we choose approach X over Y?

After the session:

  • Deliverable completed or next session scheduled - no dangling incomplete work
  • Shared context updated - README, docs, or team notes reflect what was built

Deterministic Session Readiness Audit

The Quality Gates above and the failure modes in this skill are encoded as a runnable check in scripts/session_readiness.mjs. It exports auditCoopSession(plan), taking a JSON session plan matching schemas/session-plan.schema.json (team size, timezone overlap, mode, voice-channel/ownership/ boundary/cadence flags) and returning { pass, findings, recommendations }. It flags exactly the failure modes documented above: Merge Conflict Hell (no file ownership mapped, or sync cadence over 45min), Spectator Sport Pairing (no agent boundaries/reviewer set), Context Fragmentation (no 1-sentence scope, or no sync points for a sync/hybrid session), and a mode mismatched to team shape (team size over 5, or under 4 hours of timezone overlap, without mode: "async"). See examples/sample-input.json for a plan that passes cleanly.

node scripts/session_readiness.mjs --input examples/sample-input.json

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

Do NOT use cooperative vibe coding for:

  • Building collaboration infrastructure itself - For implementing CRDTs, operational transform, or real-time sync engines → use real-time-collaboration-engine
  • Git workflow design decisions - For branching strategies, PR templates, merge policies → use git-best-practices
  • Solo AI prompt engineering - For optimizing prompts for single-user coding, not a cooperative session
  • Code review processes - For establishing review standards and approval workflows, distinct from live pairing/mobbing
  • Team onboarding or training - For teaching junior developers → use dedicated mentorship approaches

When to delegate instead:

  • Complex merge conflicts involving 5+ files → escalate to git expert or architectural review
  • Performance issues with collaboration tools → IT support or tool vendor
  • Team communication breakdown → team lead or manager intervention
  • Large-scale refactoring across multiple teams → architectural planning session
<!-- BEGIN BUNDLE INDEX (auto: index_references.py) -->

Skill Bundle Index

Every file in this skill, and when to open it. Auto-generated; run scripts/index_references.py --fix.

examples/

schemas/

scripts/

<!-- END BUNDLE INDEX -->

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply cognitive task analysis to expert work that depends on perceptual cues, branching judgment, and recurring monitoring loops. Use when decomposing expert capability into agent structure, simulation design, or validation interviews. NOT for ordinary step-by-step SOP capture or simple pipelines with no tacit cue layer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する