Wagglet
Hand off AI coding tasks to teammates withot sharing account
He👋
Wagglet came out of a problem that kept happening on our own team: a
couple of people would hit their weekly Claude Code limits by Wednesday,
while other people's allowance sat almost completely unused. The work was
there. The capacity was there. They were just in different people's
accounts.
The obvious fix is to share the login, and it's a bad fix. You lose
attribution — every prompt and every generated diff is now logged against
one identity, so when you need to know who told the agent to touch the
payments module, the data doesn't exist. You inherit the other person's
blast radius. And you can't revoke cleanly, because a credential that
lives in two heads stays live long after anyone needed it.
So Wagglet moves the work instead of the access.
An Author writes a task spec — outcome, context, limits, evidence. A
Runner claims it based on the capacity they actually have. They supervise
their own agent through it. The Agent delivers a record of what changed.
A Reviewer accepts, sends back, or reopens. The Runner gets a read-only
credential scoped to exactly that one claim, and it expires within seven
days rather than living forever.
The thing that surprised us most: writing the spec is the hard part, not
running it. A task description that works for a human colleague falls
apart when handed to someone else's agent, because your colleague fills
gaps from context and asks you when something doesn't make sense — the
agent does neither, and will confidently do the wrong thing at speed. The
section people skip is "limits", and it's the one that saves you.
Second surprise: the specs kept exposing knowledge that had never been
written down. Every time someone couldn't finish the context section, it
was because the requirement only existed as an assumption shared between
two people.
Docs are here if you want the mechanics: https://wagglet.com/docs
And we wrote up the task-design side properly here:
https://wagglet.com/blog/dual-prompt-human-agent-task-design
Built by the team at Rockbite Games. Genuinely keen to hear how other
teams are handling the capacity-distribution problem — I don't think
anyone has a clean answer yet.
5 Comments
The “limits” section being the one people skip is a really good observation. It sounds like Wagglet is uncovering a team process problem that only becomes obvious once an agent starts filling in missing context with confidence.
Feels like Wagglet could be pulling in a lot more organic traffic than it is right now. Especially while you’re still validating how teams actually distribute that unused capacity.
Have other teams described the same Wednesday problem to you yet?
Yes, a few teams have described the same imbalance, although it is not always Wednesday specifically. Usually, one or two heavy users hit their limits early while capacity remains unused elsewhere on the team. We’re still speaking with teams to understand how common this is and how they handle it now.
The capacity-distribution problem is interesting, but the stronger signal is what the task specs reveal. The product seems to expose coordination gaps that were previously hidden inside individual context.
We started with the capacity problem, but the missing context became the more interesting issue. If a task can’t be explained clearly enough for another person’s agent to run it safely, that usually reveals assumptions the team never documented. Wagglet makes those gaps visible before the agent starts changing things.