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.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
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.
allowed-tools
Read,Write,Edit,Bash,Glob,Grep,WebSearch,WebFetch
metadata
{"category":"Development Workflow & Collaboration","tags":["collaboration","pair-programming","vibe-coding","multiplayer","remote","live-share","cooperative","agents","mob-programming","ensemble"],"provenance":{"kind":"first-party","owners":["port-daddy"]},"pairs-with":[{"skill":"multi-agent-coordination","reason":"Agents as collaborative participants, not just tools"},{"skill":"real-time-collaboration-engine","reason":"The technical infrastructure (CRDTs/OT) enabling real-time editing"},{"skill":"build-coop-ide-gpui","reason":"The capstone build target when ad hoc cooperative sessions graduate into a purpose-built M-agent + N-human editor"},{"skill":"swarm-invocation-designer","reason":"Designs how multiple agents are summoned and communicate; this skill governs how the resulting human+agent session is actually run"},{"skill":"port-daddy-agent-skill","reason":"Supplies the claims/notes/salvage substrate this skill's file-ownership mapping and handoff practices anchor to"}],"io-contract":{"kind":"deliverable","consumes":["[Truncated]","[Truncated]"],"produces":["[Truncated]","[Truncated]"]}}
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 >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
Scenario
Primary Tool
Voice
Why
2 devs, Windows+Mac, <2hr session
VS Code Live Share
Discord/Zoom
Universal compatibility
2-4 devs, all Mac/Linux, >2hr
Zed
Built-in
Lowest latency, native voice
Terminal-heavy workflow
tmux/SSH
External
Zero editor lag
Cross-timezone async
Git + Loom
Async video
Time-shifted collaboration
AI-heavy session
Cursor/Claude Code
External
AI-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
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"
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.
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:
Immediate: Stop both agents (Ctrl+C in both terminals)
Diagnose: Check git status and Live Share file locks - both agents claimed overlapping ranges
Recover: Alice takes manual control, Bob's agent moves to different file
# 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.
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
Skill Bundle Index
Every file in this skill, and when to open it. Auto-generated; run scripts/index_references.py --fix.
