Source note
Self-evolving repo for team and coding agent collaboration
Code IntelligenceAutomated Software ProductionMulti Agent Software EngineeringHuman AI InteractionAgent Memory
Summary
Sepo turns a GitHub repository into a structured workspace where coding agents answer questions, implement changes, review pull requests, and iterate under human supervision. Its main contribution is persistent, traceable agent work combined with project-specific rubrics and memory.
Problem
- Coding-agent work on long-horizon tasks can become difficult to trace, verify, and coordinate across humans and agents.
- Teams need a shared record of requests, decisions, reviews, and code changes so that later agent runs can use project context rather than repeat prior work.
Approach
- Users mention
@sepo-agentin GitHub issues, pull requests, or discussions; the agent responds in the thread and records work as linked issues, pull requests, and comments. - Commands such as
/implement,/review,/fix-pr, and/orchestratesupport implementation, rubric-based review, repair, and repeated implement-review-fix loops. - The system stores agent work on an
agent/memorybranch, distills lessons from discussions and reviews into project rubrics, and uses those rubrics to guide later implementations. - Large tasks can be split into sub-issues, while scheduled jobs can inspect the repository and propose improvements that humans may review and approve before merging.
Results
- The provided material reports no quantitative benchmark, accuracy metric, task-completion rate, latency evaluation, or comparison with another coding-agent system.
- It gives concrete workflow claims: a single issue can trigger an implement-review-fix loop, large issues can fan out into sub-issues, and agent changes remain organized as GitHub issues and pull requests.
- The setup is described as a 3-step process: create or install the repository template, install the GitHub App and add a model credential, then mention the agent in an issue.
- The example review identifies missing retry safeguards while checking rubric items and tests, but the excerpt does not report whether the resulting code passed an independent evaluation.