Planner-Sisyphus doesn't make a plan

[bukanpeneliti]

i wonder whether i should explicitly say something like "make a plan" when using planner agent. it asks me to modify/create files immediately instead of making a plan, even though i prompt in planner agent

Edit: in my case, this behavior only occurs when i use gemini flash/pro models (antigravity)

[belov38]

I have the opposite situation. It's annoying with clarification even if plan is ready. It's non-sense clarification like Say “implementation mode on” (or equivalent in your harness), and I’ll proceed. disregard what you are replying you still in this loop.
I workaround it just manually swith from Planner-Sisyphus to Sisyphus and type somethink like go ahead

[bukanpeneliti]

well, i expect this planner agent works similarly to claude code.

once the user agrees with the plan, the handoff can start by whatever means, e.g. via selection like claude code (Yes and auto-accept edits) or manually prompt the implementor to execute the plan.

in this case, we need to change the agent to Sisyphus and say something like 'go ahead', just like what you did

[codyw912]

I have the opposite situation. It's annoying with clarification even if plan is ready. It's non-sense clarification like Say “implementation mode on” (or equivalent in your harness), and I’ll proceed. disregard what you are replying you still in this loop. I workaround it just manually swith from Planner-Sisyphus to Sisyphus and type somethink like go ahead

I'm not sure this is a bug -- personally I'd rather have to explicitly switch to Sisyphus in order to start implementing. Planner-Sisyphus being strictly in plan mode makes more sense to me. It's one key press to get started implementing, but if the planner is allowed to switch via prompting, it's up to the agent to decide when to stop planning. This should remain the explicit control of the user, IMO. If you want to automatically start implementing when a plan is formed, you can just use regular Sisyphus and control the behavior with your prompting.

[belov38]

I'm not sure this is a bug -- personally I'd rather have to explicitly switch to Sisyphus in order to start implementing.

I agree that manual switching between planning and implementation is the right model.

The problem is that the behavior isn’t consistent — it’s sometimes manual, sometimes implicit. That makes the flow unpredictable. If the planner always required an explicit mode switch, I’d be perfectly happy with that.

[codyw912]

I'm not sure this is a bug -- personally I'd rather have to explicitly switch to Sisyphus in order to start implementing.

I agree that manual switching between planning and implementation is the right model.

The problem is that the behavior isn’t consistent — it’s sometimes manual, sometimes implicit. That makes the flow unpredictable. If the planner always required an explicit mode switch, I’d be perfectly happy with that.

Ah, I haven't experienced any implicit switches personally. Definitely agree that a predictable flow is important here.