Something something medical researcher reinvents calculus.
In 2026: frontend web developer reinvents tmux.
Guys, please do us the service of pre-filtering your crack token dreams by investigating the tool stack which is already available in the terminal ... or at least give us the courtesy of explaining why your vibecoded Greenspun's 10th something is a significant leg up on what already exists, and perhaps has existed for many years, (and is therefore, in the training set, and is therefore, probably going to work perfectly out of the box).
Right, agents can just use tmux send-keys. Here's a skill I wrote to have Claude debug plugin code in the Helix editor's experimental plugin system. As usual, the skill is barely necessary, it just saves it some time getting the commands right and tells it where some useful reference material is.
Maybe, just maybe, this is of obvious utility to the many people who have needs that are not yours?
I very regularly need to interact with my work through a python interpreter. My work is scientific programming. So the variables might be arrays with millions of elements. In order to debug, optimize, verify, or improve in any way my work, I cannot rely on any other methods than interacting with the code as it's being run, or while everything is still in memory. So if I want to really leverage LLMs, especially to allow them to work semi-autonomously, they must be able to do the same.
I'm not going to dump tens of GB of stuff to a log file or send it around via pipes or whatever. Why is there a nan in an array that is the product of many earlier steps in a code that took an hour to run? Why are certain data in a 200k-variable system of equations much harder to fit than others, and which equations are in tension with each other to prevent better convergence?
Are interpreters and pdb not great, previously-existing tools for this kind of work? Does a new tool that lets LLMs/agents use them actually represent some sort of hack job because better solutions have existed for years?
I agree that at first glance, it seems like tmux, or even long-running PTY shell calls in harnesses like Claude, solve this. They do keep processes alive across discrete interactions. But in practice, it’s kind of terrible, because the interaction model presented to the LLM is basically polling. Polling is slow and bloats context.
To avoid polling, you need to run the process with some knowledge of the internal interpreter state. Then a surprising number of edge cases start showing up once you start using it for real data science workflows. How do you support built-in debuggers? How do you handle in-band help? How do you handle long-running commands, interrupts, restarts, or segfaults in the interpreter? How do you deal with echo in multi-line inputs? How do you handle large outputs without filling the context window? Do you spill them to the filesystem somewhere instead of just truncating them, so the model can navigate them? What if the harness doesn’t have file tools? And so on.
Then there is sandboxing, which becomes another layer of complexity wrapped into the same tool.
Are you aware that you can use tmux (or zellij, etc.), spin up the interpreter in a tmux session, and then the LLM can interact with it perfectly normally by using send-keys? And that this works quite well, because LLMs are trained on it? You just need to tell the LLM "I have ipython open in a tmux session named pythonrepl"
This is exactly how I do most of my data analysis work in Julia.
In the data science scenario you should just have proper tooling, for you it sounds like a REPL the agent can interface with. I do this with nREPL/CIDER; in Python-land a Jupyter kernel over MCP maybe. For stateful introspection where you don't control the tooling, tmux plus trivial glue gets you most of the way.
edit: There are much better solutions for Python-land below it seems :)
What I do is have a quick command that spins up a worktree on a repo with my ghostty splits as I like them and the tmux named the worktree. I then tell the Claude code about the tmux when it needs to look. It’s pretty good at natively handling the tmux interactions.
Ideally Ghostty would offer primitives to launch splits but c’est la vie. Apple automation it is.
I sincerely think the chatbot phenomena is giving people the perspective that whatever hallucinatory conversation they're having is profound because it's the first time they personally have thought about it.
On one hand this is normal in education and pedagogy to have the student or apprentice put the boring pieces together to find the wonder of the puzzle itself, but on the other this is how we end up with https://xkcd.com/927/
I agree. We skipped CLIs and went all the way to TUIs because TUIs are "easy to make now"? Or maybe because claude/codex?
But in practice you are padding token counts of agents reading streams of TUIs instead of leveraging standard unix pipes that have been around from day 1.
TLDR - your agent wants a CLI anyway.
Disclaimer: still a cool project and thank you to the author for sharing.
There's a One Minute video showing the difference on the github page.
You can also try it yourself:
$ uvx agent-cli-helper run-command vim
It sends this:
<session id="vim" current-program="vim">
<screen-capture>
1
~
~
~
~
~ VIM - Vi IMproved
~
~ version 9.2.218
~ by Bram Moolenaar et al.
~ Modified by team+vim@tracker.debian.org
~ Vim is open source and freely distributable
~
~ Sponsor Vim development!
~ type :help sponsor<Enter> for information
~
~ type :q<Enter> to exit
~ type :help<Enter> or <F1> for on-line help
~ type :help version9<Enter> for version info
~
~
~
~
~
0,0-1 All
</screen-capture>
</session>
<instructions>
The command has started. To send keystrokes run `agent-cli-helper send-keystrokes` followed by the id and the keystrokes. For instance:
$ agent-cli-helper send-keystrokes vim "^X"
Run `agent-cli-helper send-keystrokes --help` to find out the full syntax
</instructions>
<important>When you are done, use finish-command to finish the session. For example: agent-cli-helper finish-command vim</important>
<random-usage-tip>If you need to see the current screen without sending keystrokes, use agent-cli-helper get-screen-capture <session-id></random-usage-tip>
Some important parts:
* it returns the output to the stdout making it easier to loop on
* it formulates everything in fake xml so the that the agent knows the status and doesn't send weird keystrokes to the wrong command
* it includes reminders and "random-usage-tip" which is not random, it reminds the agent of how the tool behaves. The "random-usage-tip" is non-random, it is called that to make it look unrelated but it really is.
All of these things have been tested and eval'd. Calling it "screen-capture" "current-program", these have all been tested with variations for a variety of tasks/harness/model triplets.
The tool is optimized for agent usage and has been designed that way as a first principle
This is kind of fun, something I've been thinking about over the last couple days.
This is one area that makes me feel like our current LLM approach is just not quite general enough.
Yes, developers and power users love the command-line, because it is the most efficient way to accomplish many tasks. But it's rarely (never?) our only tool. We often reach for TUIs and GUIs.
I could make agents use delve (a go lang debugger) interactively, and it worked quite well specially when models weren't as good as they are now, they could choose where to put the breakpoint and inspect variables, I found that was the only way to unlock some situations when they insisted in that "it must be working", and it wasn't, I found that giving them the empirical tools to check for themselves was the only way to unstuck them.
Another use was for them to read the logs out of your development web server ( typical npm run dev, go run .)
I could do this with tmux send-keys and tmux capture-pane, you just need to organise the session, panes and windows and tell the agent where is what.
That was my first agent to tool communication experience, and it was cool.
After that I experimented with a agent to agent communication, and I would prompt to claude "after you finish ask @alex to review your code". In the CLAUDE.md file i'd explain that to talk to @alex you need to send the message using tmux send-keys to his tmux session, and to codex I'd say "when you received a review request from @claudia do .. such and such, and when you finish write her back the result of it"
I added one more agent to coordinate a todo list, and send next tasks.
After that I got a bit carried away and wrote some code to organise things in matrix chat rooms, (because the mobile app just works with your server) and I was fascinated that they seem to be collaborating quite well (to some extend), but it didn't scale.
I abandoned the "project" because after all I found agents were getting better and better and implementing internal todo tasks, subagents ...etc plus some other tmux orchestrations tools appeared every other day.
I got fatigued of some many new ai things coming up, that and the end, I went back to just use iTerm, split panes, and manually coordinate things. Tabs for projects, panes for agents, no more than 2 agents per project ( max 3 for a side non conflicting task ) I think that is also what cognitively does not tire me.
My project name was cool though, tamex, as in tame tmux agents :)
And to comment on the submission, I think the idea has potential, I might give it a try, the key is to have low friction and require low cognitive load from the end user.
I think that's why skills after all are the thing that is going to stick the most.
Maybe I'll use this to feed prompts into an interactive Claude session so I can use my max subscription instead of having to pay for API credits when using claude -p
I wish I was keeping better track of them all but there's a bunch of neat tmux based multi-agent systems. Agent of Empires for example has a ton of code around reading session data out of the various terminal uis.
https://github.com/njbrake/agent-of-empires
Ideally imo tui apps also would have accessibility APIs. The structured view of those APIs feels like it would be nice to have. And it would mean that an agent could just use accessibility and hit both gui and tui. For example voxcode recent submission does this on mac for understanding what file is open/line numbers.
https://github.com/jensneuse/voxcodehttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688582
hehe, i made something similar for feedback loop on claude hooks. claude can open another claude instance in the testing folder, and check to see if the hooks fire properly
Something something medical researcher reinvents calculus.
In 2026: frontend web developer reinvents tmux.
Guys, please do us the service of pre-filtering your crack token dreams by investigating the tool stack which is already available in the terminal ... or at least give us the courtesy of explaining why your vibecoded Greenspun's 10th something is a significant leg up on what already exists, and perhaps has existed for many years, (and is therefore, in the training set, and is therefore, probably going to work perfectly out of the box).
Right, agents can just use tmux send-keys. Here's a skill I wrote to have Claude debug plugin code in the Helix editor's experimental plugin system. As usual, the skill is barely necessary, it just saves it some time getting the commands right and tells it where some useful reference material is.
https://github.com/david-crespo/dotfiles/blob/main/claude/sk...
Maybe, just maybe, this is of obvious utility to the many people who have needs that are not yours?
I very regularly need to interact with my work through a python interpreter. My work is scientific programming. So the variables might be arrays with millions of elements. In order to debug, optimize, verify, or improve in any way my work, I cannot rely on any other methods than interacting with the code as it's being run, or while everything is still in memory. So if I want to really leverage LLMs, especially to allow them to work semi-autonomously, they must be able to do the same.
I'm not going to dump tens of GB of stuff to a log file or send it around via pipes or whatever. Why is there a nan in an array that is the product of many earlier steps in a code that took an hour to run? Why are certain data in a 200k-variable system of equations much harder to fit than others, and which equations are in tension with each other to prevent better convergence?
Are interpreters and pdb not great, previously-existing tools for this kind of work? Does a new tool that lets LLMs/agents use them actually represent some sort of hack job because better solutions have existed for years?
I agree that at first glance, it seems like tmux, or even long-running PTY shell calls in harnesses like Claude, solve this. They do keep processes alive across discrete interactions. But in practice, it’s kind of terrible, because the interaction model presented to the LLM is basically polling. Polling is slow and bloats context.
To avoid polling, you need to run the process with some knowledge of the internal interpreter state. Then a surprising number of edge cases start showing up once you start using it for real data science workflows. How do you support built-in debuggers? How do you handle in-band help? How do you handle long-running commands, interrupts, restarts, or segfaults in the interpreter? How do you deal with echo in multi-line inputs? How do you handle large outputs without filling the context window? Do you spill them to the filesystem somewhere instead of just truncating them, so the model can navigate them? What if the harness doesn’t have file tools? And so on.
Then there is sandboxing, which becomes another layer of complexity wrapped into the same tool.
I’ve been building a tool around this problem: `mcp-repl` https://github.com/posit-dev/mcp-repl
So tmux helps, but even with a skill and some shims, it does not really solve the core problem.
Are you aware that you can use tmux (or zellij, etc.), spin up the interpreter in a tmux session, and then the LLM can interact with it perfectly normally by using send-keys? And that this works quite well, because LLMs are trained on it? You just need to tell the LLM "I have ipython open in a tmux session named pythonrepl"
This is exactly how I do most of my data analysis work in Julia.
> I'm not going to dump tens of GB of stuff to a log file
In the same vein as the parent comment, the curiosity is why you would vibe code a solution instead of reaching for grep.
See related sibling: the use cases are compelling!
My complaint is that tmux handles them perfectly. Exactly the claim that OP is making with their software - is served by robust 18 year old software.
In 2026, it costs nearly nothing to thoroughly and autonomously investigate related software — so yes I am going to be purposefully abrasive about it.
And if you want to interact with tmux from within the python interpreter there is a very good library available, libtmux:
https://github.com/tmux-python/libtmux
In the data science scenario you should just have proper tooling, for you it sounds like a REPL the agent can interface with. I do this with nREPL/CIDER; in Python-land a Jupyter kernel over MCP maybe. For stateful introspection where you don't control the tooling, tmux plus trivial glue gets you most of the way.
edit: There are much better solutions for Python-land below it seems :)
What I do is have a quick command that spins up a worktree on a repo with my ghostty splits as I like them and the tmux named the worktree. I then tell the Claude code about the tmux when it needs to look. It’s pretty good at natively handling the tmux interactions.
Ideally Ghostty would offer primitives to launch splits but c’est la vie. Apple automation it is.
You can start a tmux session and tell your agent about it and it will happily send commands and get the output from it.
I saw this post a while ago that turned me on to the idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46570397
The problem is, they'll find there is typically already a good solution to their problem, and then they'll have nothing to write about.
I sincerely think the chatbot phenomena is giving people the perspective that whatever hallucinatory conversation they're having is profound because it's the first time they personally have thought about it.
On one hand this is normal in education and pedagogy to have the student or apprentice put the boring pieces together to find the wonder of the puzzle itself, but on the other this is how we end up with https://xkcd.com/927/
I agree. We skipped CLIs and went all the way to TUIs because TUIs are "easy to make now"? Or maybe because claude/codex?
But in practice you are padding token counts of agents reading streams of TUIs instead of leveraging standard unix pipes that have been around from day 1.
TLDR - your agent wants a CLI anyway.
Disclaimer: still a cool project and thank you to the author for sharing.
The TUI makes more sense to humans who don’t understand the difference between a human and a machine.
At this point, it’s easier to (have the agent) build a simple tool like this than it is to find and set up an existing one.
My version works on small local models and uses tmux under the hood.
No installation is necessary.
Simply tell your agent to run uvx agent-cli-helper and that's it.
The verbiage and flow is optimized through test harnesses to maximize effectiveness for agentic use.
https://github.com/day50-dev/acli
(Sorry: my marketing and and pitch skills are trash)
How is acli different from telling the model to "use tmux for this"?
It performs substantially better.
just try it out. It's not the same.
There's a One Minute video showing the difference on the github page.
You can also try it yourself:
It sends this: Some important parts:* it returns the output to the stdout making it easier to loop on
* it formulates everything in fake xml so the that the agent knows the status and doesn't send weird keystrokes to the wrong command
* it includes reminders and "random-usage-tip" which is not random, it reminds the agent of how the tool behaves. The "random-usage-tip" is non-random, it is called that to make it look unrelated but it really is.
All of these things have been tested and eval'd. Calling it "screen-capture" "current-program", these have all been tested with variations for a variety of tasks/harness/model triplets.
The tool is optimized for agent usage and has been designed that way as a first principle
I’ve used something similar a bit and it worked very well: https://github.com/pproenca/agent-tui
This is kind of fun, something I've been thinking about over the last couple days.
This is one area that makes me feel like our current LLM approach is just not quite general enough.
Yes, developers and power users love the command-line, because it is the most efficient way to accomplish many tasks. But it's rarely (never?) our only tool. We often reach for TUIs and GUIs.
It's why approaches like this get me excited: https://si.inc/posts/fdm1/
I could make agents use delve (a go lang debugger) interactively, and it worked quite well specially when models weren't as good as they are now, they could choose where to put the breakpoint and inspect variables, I found that was the only way to unlock some situations when they insisted in that "it must be working", and it wasn't, I found that giving them the empirical tools to check for themselves was the only way to unstuck them.
Another use was for them to read the logs out of your development web server ( typical npm run dev, go run .)
I could do this with tmux send-keys and tmux capture-pane, you just need to organise the session, panes and windows and tell the agent where is what.
That was my first agent to tool communication experience, and it was cool.
After that I experimented with a agent to agent communication, and I would prompt to claude "after you finish ask @alex to review your code". In the CLAUDE.md file i'd explain that to talk to @alex you need to send the message using tmux send-keys to his tmux session, and to codex I'd say "when you received a review request from @claudia do .. such and such, and when you finish write her back the result of it" I added one more agent to coordinate a todo list, and send next tasks.
After that I got a bit carried away and wrote some code to organise things in matrix chat rooms, (because the mobile app just works with your server) and I was fascinated that they seem to be collaborating quite well (to some extend), but it didn't scale.
I abandoned the "project" because after all I found agents were getting better and better and implementing internal todo tasks, subagents ...etc plus some other tmux orchestrations tools appeared every other day.
I got fatigued of some many new ai things coming up, that and the end, I went back to just use iTerm, split panes, and manually coordinate things. Tabs for projects, panes for agents, no more than 2 agents per project ( max 3 for a side non conflicting task ) I think that is also what cognitively does not tire me.
My project name was cool though, tamex, as in tame tmux agents :)
And to comment on the submission, I think the idea has potential, I might give it a try, the key is to have low friction and require low cognitive load from the end user. I think that's why skills after all are the thing that is going to stick the most.
Maybe I'll use this to feed prompts into an interactive Claude session so I can use my max subscription instead of having to pay for API credits when using claude -p
That’s neat I was working on a skill for this exact purpose:
https://github.com/halfwhey/skills/tree/master/plugins/tmux
Two use cases I use this for is debugging with GDB/PDB and giving me walkthroughs on how to use TUIs
I've had my agents using tmux for these use cases for a couple years now. What does TUI-use offer on top?
I've barely been using it lately, mostly leaving it disabled. But the tmux-mcp is pretty solid. https://github.com/nickgnd/tmux-mcp
I wish I was keeping better track of them all but there's a bunch of neat tmux based multi-agent systems. Agent of Empires for example has a ton of code around reading session data out of the various terminal uis. https://github.com/njbrake/agent-of-empires
Ideally imo tui apps also would have accessibility APIs. The structured view of those APIs feels like it would be nice to have. And it would mean that an agent could just use accessibility and hit both gui and tui. For example voxcode recent submission does this on mac for understanding what file is open/line numbers. https://github.com/jensneuse/voxcode https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688582
Incredibly, agent-of-empires has become my daily driver.
So if I'm understanding right, Claude Code can use Claude Code now?
No, what you gonna want to do is use opencode to use claude code to write codex.
I thought Codex at least already can handle interactive sessions of programs, e.g. GDB.
hehe, i made something similar for feedback loop on claude hooks. claude can open another claude instance in the testing folder, and check to see if the hooks fire properly
Finally Claude Code can now control Claude Code
Does it work with any TUI?
Does it work on any TUI?
Are they any good at nethack?