We started working on this a few weeks ago. Personally, I was feeling pretty useless working synchronously with coding agents. The 2-5 minutes that they take to complete their work often led me to distraction and doomscrolling.
But there's plenty of productive work that we (human engineers) could be doing in that time, especially if we run coding agents in the background and parallelise them.
Vibe Kanban lets you effortlessly spin up multiple coding agents. While some agents handle tasks in the background, you can focus on planning future work or reviewing completed tasks.
After a few weeks of internal dog fooding and sharing it with friends, we've now open-sourced Vibe Kanban, and it's stable enough for day-to-day use.
I'd love to hear your feedback, feel free to open an issue on the github and we'll respond ASAP.
It is harvesting email addresses and github usernames: https://github.com/BloopAI/vibe-kanban/blob/609f9c4f9e989b59...
Then it seems to track every time you start/finish/merge/attempt a task, and every time you run a dev server. Including what executors you are using (I think this means "claude code" or the like), whether attempts succeeded or not and their exit codes, and various booleans like whether or not a project is an existing one, or whether or not you've set up scripts to run with it.
This really strikes me as something that should be, must legally be in many jurisdictions, opt in.
I will leave this open for comments for the next hour and then merge.
It really doesn't hurt to be honest about this and ask up-front. This is clear enough and benign enough that I'd actually be happy to opt-in.
I think also that this would be better as an mcp tool / resource. Let the model operate and query it as needed.
eg ok we all know about EU website cookie banners, but i am more ignorant about devtools/clis sending back telemetry. any actual laws cited here would update me significatnly
"Personal data is information that relates to an identified or identifiable individual. If you cannot directly identify an individual from that information, then you need to consider whether the individual is still identifiable. You should take into account the information you are processing together with all the means reasonably likely to be used by either you or any other person to identify that individual."
Where I live I think this would violate PIPEDA, the Canadian privacy law that covers all business that do business in any Canadian province/territory other than BC/Alberta/Quebec (which all have similar laws).
There's generally no exception in these for "open source devtools" - laws are typically still laws even if release something for free. The Canadian version (though I don't think the GDPR does) has an exception for entirely non-commercial organizations, but Bloop AI appears to be a commercial organization so it wouldn't apply. It also contains an exception for business contact information - but as I understand it that is not interpreted broadly enough to cover random developers email addresses just because they happen to be used for a potentially personal github account.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer. You should probably consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction (i.e. all of them) if it actually matters to you.
great catch, many open source projects appear to be just an elaborate lead gen tool these days.
I'm not particularly inclined to publish it because I don't want to associate myself with a project harvesting emails like this.
You can actually use a coding agent to create tickets from within Vibe Kanban. Add the Vibe Kanban MCP server (from MCP settings) and ask the agent to plan a task and write tickets.
Are you thinking of doing a hosted version so I can have my team collab on it?
And I found I could open lots of PRs at once but they often need to be dependent on each other - and then I want to make a change to the first one. How are you thinking of better managing that flow?
Also now we're pushing many more PRs think we defo need better ways to stack and review work. Will look into this asap
Is this really the case?
This feel like much too broad a statement to be true.
This tactic is called "assuming the sale". ie, Make a statement as-if it is already true, and put the burden on the reader to negate it. Majority of us are too scared of what others think, and go-along by default. It is related to the FOMO tactic in that it could be used in conjunction with it to make it a double-whammy. for example, the statement above could have ended with: "and everyone is now using agents to increase their productivity, and if you arent using it, you are left behind"
Glad you stood up to challenge it.
> > This feel like much too broad a statement to be true.
This is just what they wish to be true.
It's a lot more hands on when you try to write code with it, which I still try out, but it's only because I know exactly what the solution is and I'm just walking the agent towards it and improving how I write my prompts. It's slower than doing it myself in many cases.
All this cargo-culting is done without realizing that more code means more security issues, technical debt, more time for humans to review the mess and *especially* more testing.
Once again, Vibe-coding is not software engineering.
Dead Comment
It's chaos. Thats fine if you are vibe coding an unimportant nextjs/vercel demo, but i'm really sceptical of all this stance that you should be proud of how abstracted you are from code. A kanban board to just shoot off as many tasks as possible and just quickly read over the PR's is crazy to me. If you want to appear a serious company that should be allowed to write enterprise code, imo this path is so risky. I see this in quite a few podcasts, tweets etc. People bragging how abstracted they are from their own product anymore. Again, maybe i am missing something, but all of this github copilot/just reviewing like 10 coding agents PR's just introduces so much noise and slop. Is it really what you want your image to be as a code company?
Fwiw Claude suggests using different git workspaces for your agents. This would entirely solve the clashing, though they may still conflict and need normal git conflict resolves of course.
Theoretically that would work fine, as it would be just like two people working on different branches/repos/etc.
I've not tried that though. AI generates way too much code for me to review as it is, several subtasks working concurrently would be overwhelming for me.
AI needs to do every single step of this type of flow to an acceptable quality level, with high standards on that definition of "acceptable", and then you could bring all the workflow together. But doing the workflow first and assuming quality will catch up later is just asking for a pile of rejections when you try to sell it.
I'm not just making this up, either... I've seen and talked to numerous people over the last couple years who all came up with similar ideas. Some even did have workable prototypes running. And they had sales from the mom/friends/family connections, but when they tried to get "real" sales, they hit walls.