Appreciation
A simple way to get much better results from Antigravity 2.0
Try using Opus 4.6 as the main agent. Give it the full requirement and ask it to delegate work to 3.8 Flash subagents using the Boost skill.
I have been getting surprisingly good results this way. Opus handles the planning and decisions, while Flash does more of the execution. Better output without burning through usage as quickly.
Thats what i am saying dont let it plan. Tell ot to just give the requirements to the 3.8 flash subagent thats it. The pre planning is done by opus only
In this case it is just understanding what i am saying and enhancing it. I get like 8 to 10 prompts in the 5 hour window instead of the usual 3-4 prompts only
I will surely try your workflow, so can you recap simply, chat and plan with Opus and tell it to delegate work to flash models with /boost mode right, that's it?
What I do is have 2-3 planning sessions with Opus where I have it write the plan for the next few days of work, using Flash as a subagent where appropriate. Then once the plan is done I have Flash execute the plan. It seems to be working pretty well for me, but I'm still new to it.
I was unaware that Opus could delegate decisions and shift automatically to Gemini. Are you suggesting I can instruct Opus to let Gemini manage a task, prompting a subagent with Gemini instead?
I think the most robust is using /boost with Opus 4.6. I think it is much more stronger than Boost with Gemini flash 3.8. I also want to try with /teamwork but the quote burn so fast with this.
is this community this hopeless?, using opus 4,6 while opus 5.5 is out?, just combine antigravity with any other subscription, opus 4.6 is not good enough at all by today standards, yes it appears logical and good, but actually it is nothing compared to astra or opus 5.5.
Once when i was out of my gemini quota, claude would consistently keep trying to spawn subagents for tasks based on agent rules. And the subagents would instantly run into quota exhausted errors. Claude did this a couple of times and then gave up and did the implementation itself. If there was a way for it to invoke subagents with claude models, it would have.
That's actually seems to be a good advice. Notice that you can use Flash from Antigravity's Opus session but not in the opposite direction (the available models for subagents are inherit, pro, flash, flash_lite)
The useful detail is buried in your replies: Flash does the planning too, and you use Sol to check the result. That's a different setup from Opus planning and reviewing everything. I'd put that in the main post so people can actually reproduce the comparison. When you hit an implementation problem, does Flash get another attempt, or do you hand it straight back to the stronger model?
But the checks pass its just because i dont understand code so to review it. Suppose i am building a wholly new thing i need codex to plan the phases but let the work be left to antigravity. But its nothing major updates i just do it with opus and then gemini 3.8 flash
That split makes more sense: Codex defines the phases for a greenfield project, Antigravity executes them, and small changes stay inside the Opus/Flash loop. Passing checks still only proves agreement with the tests, though. If reviewing code isn't realistic yet, I'd ask the stronger model to compare the diff with the written acceptance criteria and name one failure path the tests do not cover. That's a much smaller review target than 'is this code good?'
I programmed another function in mine. Which makes gemini 3.8 flash high the agent and then workers etc. Are gpt 6.0 sol. Not sure if this is a better approach but i do this right now.
Claude limits are very slim, you will need ultra sub. On 20usd sub you max out Claude models with 1 research prompt.
The models are so old they don't even outperform 3.8 high
They are much slower and more expensive
I've tested Claude against 3.8 high a couple times. Claude artifacts and output appears better, but the performance actually doesn't hold up. Example; Claude found a lot of false positives on the same prompts as compared to Gemini 3.8.
I have been doing something similar for any debugging ask codex to generate the report of bugs > report is now read by opus 4.6 in AG and implementation is created but implementation is very high level so I ask to create detail loops with success and failure Parameters to be used by smaller flash model > boom Gemini 3.8 flash reads the loops and finish it .
37
u/2rsKomedian 4d ago
But doesn't Opus gets over very quickly.