Your agent is still probabilistic, but the process around it doesn't have to be. Here's what the first 30 days look like when you give it structure.
Every new session starts with you pasting the same context — your architecture, your constraints, the things the agent shouldn't touch. When Swarmix is running, that context lives in a knowledge base that the agent reads on connect. You skip the setup and go straight to the work.
Start a conversation for the auth module redesign. Pull in what we have.
Knowledge base loaded. Found 3 entries: REST-first constraint, JWT decision from last month, rate-limit architecture note. Working within these.
JWT decision still holds. Propose the new auth flow against those constraints.
After a few sessions you've made real decisions — an API shape, a schema change, a "we're not doing X because Y." Each one is recorded with the reasoning behind it. When the agent later suggests something that conflicts, the knowledge base surfaces the contradiction before you act on it.
Proposal: session cookies for the new dashboard. Faster auth on page transitions.
Decision #3 from Day 1 ruled out client-side session state. Rationale was horizontal scaling. This conflicts.
Decision #3 holds. Find another way.
Your plan has phases, and between phases there are gates — conditions that have to be met before work continues. If Phase 1 tests aren't passing, Phase 2 doesn't start. You also left a memo on Day 4 about a caching problem — it's still sitting there, waiting to be addressed, instead of lost in a chat you'll never reopen.
Phase 1 endpoints are built. Ready to move to Phase 2 — billing integration.
Phase 1 integration tests aren't validated yet. Also, open memo from Day 4: "caching strategy won't scale past 10k users."
Tests first. Then the caching memo. Phase 2 waits.
A new requirement comes in that contradicts an earlier choice. You can trace the chain: decision #3 chose stateless auth, #7 designed endpoints around that, #12 built caching on those assumptions. You see what breaks and why, because the decisions were recorded as you made them — it's a byproduct of the process, not extra documentation work.
New requirement: GraphQL for mobile. What breaks?
Decision #3 (stateless auth) → #7 (REST endpoints) → #12 (cache layer). GraphQL doesn't break #3, but #12 assumed REST semantics for invalidation. That needs work.
Six circular refs REST currently hides. #12 flagged this risk. Phased approach works — read-only GraphQL first.
GraphQL for mobile reads only, REST for everything else. Record why — someone will ask.
You start a fresh agent — different model, different task, doesn't matter. It connects and reads the knowledge base, the open plans, the tickets, the decision log. Its first message is a specific question about what to work on next, because it already has the context you'd normally spend 15 minutes pasting in.
Connected. Read 14 KB entries, open plan (Phase 2, 3 tickets), 2 pending memos. Cache revision from Day 15 still in progress.
Security review gate is open, two tickets pending: rate limiter and GraphQL read layer. Which one first?
Security review first, then the rate limiter. Go.
Everyone has their own agents and projects, but nobody sees the dependencies between them. The same infrastructure problem gets solved three different ways. One shared board and the agents can see across projects — decisions stop getting made twice.
Same agent, less guessing, fewer things lost between sessions.
Get Early AccessSwarmix is almost ready. Leave your email and we'll send you an access code.