Back to Blog
workflow

Why I Stopped Switching Between AI Coding Tools

How context-switching between AI tools was costing me more than money, and the terminal dashboard that fixed it.

February 11, 2026 by river
agent-orchestration claude-code codex-cli kimi-cli workflow

Why I Stopped Switching Between AI Coding Tools

Or: how I learned to stop worrying and embrace the terminal environment.

Early Days with IDEs

I am not even a developer, but everytime Claude Code dropped a newer verion, I did get excited. Then Codex CLI. Then Kimi. Each one promised to change how I code, and honestly, each one delivered—just in different ways.

Claude Code became my go-to for architecture. It asks good questions. It thinks about trade-offs. But when it deals with bugs in codebase, it slows down and think too much.

Since Codex 5.1, I switched to Codex CLI simply because the precision of locating and fixing the bug. It’s fast. It doesn’t overthink. When I know what I want and just need someone (something?) to type it, Codex is there.

Kimi CLI surprised me right about I tried Moltbot, Clawdbot or whatever OpenClaw name is. K2.5 introduced 2 important feature, 1M token context window and the shocking post-training for agentic capability. It isn’t a gimmick when I start implementing in Molty. It outsmarts other models when it comes to agent management. It orchetrates with precision, spawn works well, and most importantly, the large context windows that would choke other models was just… breakfast for Kimi.

The Friction

But here’s what nobody tells you: using multiple agents means multiple contexts. Multiple subscriptions. Multiple workflows. Multiple places to check when something breaks.

So I ended up with this dance:

  1. Start in Claude Code for architecture
  2. Switch to Codex for implementation
  3. Realize I need to check something in the legacy codebase
  4. Forget what Claude was saying
  5. Switch back, lose the thread
  6. Repeat

The mental overhead wasn’t the cost. It was the context loss. Each switch meant rebuilding state. Each switch meant tiny fractures in my concentration.

A Different Approach

Molty way to handle context is amazing. I started wondering: what if I didn’t have to choose? Not in the “one tool does everything” sense—that’s how you get mediocrity. But in the “see everything at once” sense.

That’s how Agent Orchestrator started. Not as a product. As a personal itch.

I wanted:

  • A single place to see what’s running
  • The ability to spawn any agent without leaving my terminal
  • No auto-refresh spamming my screen
  • Context isolation so agents don’t contaminate each other

The dashboard is intentionally minimal. ASCII interface. Static by default—you press r to refresh when you’re ready, not when the app thinks you should be interrupted.

┌─ Agent Orchestrator ─────────────────────────┐
│ Running: 3 | Completed: 12 | Failed: 0       │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ architect   │ claude  │ running │ 4 turns    │
│ builder     │ codex   │ running │ 12 turns   │
│ reviewer    │ claude  │ waiting │ 0 turns    │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────┘

That’s it. No graphs. No “AI-powered insights.” Just status.

What Changed

The shift was subtle but profound. Instead of “which tool should I use for this entire project?” I started thinking “which tool for this specific task?”

  • Architecture phase: Claude, because it questions assumptions
  • Implementation phase: Codex, because it moves fast
  • Code review: Separate Claude instance with fresh context, so it doesn’t inherit my biases
  • Legacy archaeology: Kimi, because context windows are its superpower

Each agent runs isolated. They don’t share history. They don’t get confused by each other’s output. The dashboard just shows me what’s happening and gets out of the way.

The Practical Stuff

If you want to try this workflow, here’s what I actually do:

Start the dashboard:

ao-dashboard --daemon

Spawn agents as needed:

# In one terminal
ao spawn architect claude

# In another (or the same, doesn't matter)
ao spawn builder codex

Check status when I want:

r  # refresh

Clean up when done:

C  # clear all

No magic. Just visibility.

What This Isn’t

I’m not saying everyone should use multiple agents. If Claude Code or Cursor or whatever does everything you need, that’s great. Keep using it.

This is for people who, like me, found themselves wanting different things from different tools and got tired of the switching cost.

It’s also not about “agent swarms” in the sci-fi sense. The agents don’t talk to each other. They don’t negotiate. They just work in parallel, and I check on them when I want to.

The Human Edge

Here’s what I learned: the value isn’t in having more AI. It’s in having the right AI for each piece of the work.

Claude’s depth. Codex’s speed. Kimi’s scale. Each has a place. The dashboard just removes the friction of using all three.

At the end of the day, I’m still the one deciding what gets built and why. The agents are tools—powerful ones, but tools nonetheless. The orchestration layer doesn’t change that. It just lets me pick the right tool without penalty.

If that sounds useful, check it out. If not, no worries. Use what works for you.

The best workflow is the one you actually use.

River is not even a developer, but start building tools for the agent era.