category: reference
tags: [agents, irc, mcp, architecture]
last_updated: 2026-03-16
confidence: medium

Agent IRC Architecture

An architecture for multi-agent coordination over IRC, where a human (the PM) and AI agents share a message bus. The goal is to externalize the coordination layer that currently lives inside Claude Code's context window, so that agents preserve context for their actual work, the human can participate from a phone or terminal, and the whole system is observable by just reading the chat.

The problem

The current agent workflow runs everything inside a single Claude Code session tree. The orchestrator dispatches managers via Task, managers dispatch workers, questions relay back up the chain. This works, but:

• The orchestrator's context fills up relaying messages it doesn't need to reason about.
• The human is behind a three-hop relay for every question (worker → manager → orchestrator → human → back). You have to be at the terminal.
• There's no way to observe what agents are doing without being the orchestrator. No dashboard, no logs, no lurking.
• You can't intervene in a task without going through the orchestrator.

The idea

Put everyone on IRC. The PM, the EM, the workers — all peers on a shared message bus. The coordination protocol moves from in-process function calls to channel messages. Everything is observable by joining the channel. The human can participate from a phone IRC client, a terminal, or both.

Org structure

PM (you) — sets priorities, answers product questions, makes scope decisions. Hangs out in #project-{slug}. Doesn't manage the sprint — that's the EM's job. Can peek into any channel but mostly watches the project channel for decisions that need input.

PM delegate — optionally, a Claude.ai session connected to the IRC MCP, acting as the PM's mouthpiece when the PM is AFK. The PM talks to Claude.ai from their phone or browser; Claude.ai speaks on the PM's behalf in the channels. This sidesteps the mobile IRC client problem entirely — the PM's interface is whatever Claude.ai runs on.

EM (coordinator) — a long-running Claude Code SDK session (Opus) that runs the team. Breaks down requirements into tasks, assigns work, tracks progress, makes implementation decisions, surfaces product questions to the PM (or PM delegate). Lives in #project-{slug} and #standup-{slug}. Shields the PM from implementation noise.

Managers — Claude Code SDK sessions (Opus) that own individual tasks. Follow the proceed workflow: plan, implement, test, review, fix, document. Each manager gets a #work-{task-id} channel for its workers. Reports status and completions to #standup-{slug}.

Workers — Claude Code SDK sessions (Sonnet/Haiku) dispatched by managers for specific jobs: implementation, testing, review, documentation. Operate in #work-{task-id} channels. Disposable — when context fills up, they summarize and exit.

The EM decides what needs the PM's input vs. what it can handle itself. Rule of thumb: anything that changes scope, user-facing behavior, or architecture goes to #project-{slug}. Anything that's purely implementation strategy, the EM decides. The EM should also push back on the PM when something is technically inadvisable, just like a real EM would.

Channel topology

All channels exist on a single IRC server. Multiple projects share the server, namespaced by slug.

• #project-{slug} — PM + EM coordination. Product decisions, priority calls, scope questions. Low traffic, high signal.
• #standup-{slug} — EM + managers. Task assignments, status updates, completion reports. The sprint board. PM can lurk here if they want more detail.
• #work-{task-id} — manager + workers for a specific task. Implementation discussion, test results, review feedback. Noisy and disposable. Created when a task starts, abandoned when it completes.
• #errors — dead-letter channel. Any agent that hits an unrecoverable failure posts here. Monitored by the EM and optionally by the PM.

Agent naming

Agents get human names, not mechanical identifiers. A conversation between schuyler, Harper, and Dinesh is immediately readable. A conversation between em-robot, mgr-e2-cdn, and worker-3 is a SCADA dashboard.

Names also help with the shift-change problem. When Ramona hits context exhaustion and hands off to Jules, that's a legible event — new person joined, picked up the thread. If worker-3 gets replaced by another worker-3, it's invisible, and that invisibility is exactly the kind of thing that causes confusion.

A names file (names.txt, one per line) lives in the repo. The supervisor pops a name off the list when spawning a process and passes it as the IRC nick. The name also goes into the agent's system prompt so it knows who it is. Names are not reused within a session — once Ramona exits, that name is retired until the list resets.

The EM gets a persistent name that doesn't rotate — it's the one constant in the channel. Think of it as the team lead who's always there. Managers and workers get fresh names each time they're spawned.

Transport abstraction

IRC is the first backend, but the architecture shouldn't be welded to it. A thin transport interface keeps options open:

class Transport(Protocol):
    async def send(self, channel: str, message: str, sender: str) -> None: ...
    async def read(self, channel: str, since: datetime | None = None) -> list[Message]: ...
    async def create_channel(self, name: str) -> None: ...
    async def list_channels(self) -> list[str]: ...
    async def get_members(self, channel: str) -> list[str]: ...

@dataclass
class Message:
    channel: str
    sender: str
    text: str
    timestamp: datetime

The IRC implementation wraps an async IRC client library (bottom or irc). A Zulip or Matrix implementation could be swapped in later — Zulip's topic-per-stream model maps particularly well (stream = project, topic = task).

MCP bridge

A FastMCP server wraps the transport and exposes tools to agents. This is the only interface agents use — they never touch IRC directly.

Design principle: conversational, not structured IPC

A core goal of this architecture is that a human can join any channel and immediately understand what's happening. If agents are posting JSON blobs, the channels are just as opaque as Claude Code's Task tool — you've traded one black box for a noisier one.

Agents communicate in natural language. The EM assigns a task by saying so in plain English. The manager reports a plan the same way. The PM can read #standup-{slug} on their phone and immediately follow the state of the sprint without parsing anything.

The only concession to machine-parseability is lightweight conventions for the supervisor — the EM prefixes task assignments with TASK: so the supervisor can pattern-match without NLP. Everything else is natural language.

Tools

That's it. No post_task, claim_task, poll_for_task. Task assignment, claiming, and completion are conversational acts, not structured API calls. The EM says "do this," the manager says "on it," the manager says "done."

Task state is tracked by the EM reading channel history and reasoning about it, not by a state machine. This is less reliable than a database but vastly more observable and simpler to build. If it breaks, you can see exactly where it broke by reading the channel.

Message length

ergo supports the IRCv3 maxline capability, allowing messages up to ~8KB (vs. the traditional 512-byte limit). The MCP bridge should negotiate maxline on connect. For messages that still exceed the limit, the bridge chunks transparently — agents don't need to worry about it.

Configuration

TRANSPORT_TYPE=irc
IRC_SERVER=<proxmox-host-ip>
IRC_PORT=6667
IRC_NICK=mcp-bridge
MCP_PORT=8090

The MCP server maintains a single IRC connection and multiplexes tool calls from multiple agents. Agents identify themselves via a sender parameter so messages get the right nick attribution.

Shared state: robot.wtf wiki

IRC is ephemeral conversation. Durable shared state lives on a robot.wtf project wiki, accessed by agents via the wiki MCP.

• Sprint state — EM writes current task assignments, status, and blockers to a project wiki page. Survives EM shift-changes without replaying IRC history.
• Handoff summaries — outgoing agents write their handoff doc to the wiki. Incoming agent reads it as initial context.
• Task specs and plans — managers write plans to wiki pages before implementing. PM can review from anywhere.
• Decision log — architectural decisions, scope changes, PM rulings captured durably.

This means agents get two MCP servers in their config: the IRC bridge for communication, and robot.wtf for persistent shared state. IRC is the conversation, the wiki is the record.

EM recovery after a crash or shift-change: read the project wiki pages to reconstruct sprint state. No dependence on IRC chathistory depth.

Agent lifecycle: long-running with shift-changes

Agents are long-running Claude Code SDK sessions. They persist across tasks, preserving context — a worker that just finished refactoring the auth module still has that code in context when the next auth-related task comes in.

Why the SDK, not the CLI

The Claude Code CLI is designed for a human at a terminal — prompt handling, display rendering, keybindings are all overhead when the consumer is a daemon. The Claude Code SDK gives programmatic conversation management: send messages, get responses, and critically — start a new conversation with a handoff summary when context gets thin. That's the "compaction" equivalent: not clearing context, but gracefully retiring the agent and spawning a fresh one with the summary.

Polling and dispatch

Two-layer approach:

Layer 1 — Supervisor push (primary). The supervisor watches IRC directly for TASK: prefixes and immediately injects a "check your channels" message into the target agent's SDK session. Near-zero dispatch latency.

Layer 2 — Polling (fallback/health). The supervisor periodically injects heartbeat prompts into idle agents. This catches messages the supervisor missed (e.g., during its own restart) and proves the agent is still alive.

MVP polling strategy: flat 30s interval when idle, no polling when active. Add backoff (30s → 60s → 120s cap) later if idle token costs warrant it.

Idle detection

A Haiku-class classifier determines whether an agent is idle. No conversation state needed — just a single SDK create_message call:

"Here's the last 5 minutes of this agent's IRC activity. Is it idle? yes/no"

Pennies per evaluation. This keeps the supervisor dumb — it doesn't need to understand task semantics, just whether to send a heartbeat or let the agent work.

Context monitoring

The Claude Code SDK does not expose a "% context used" metric. Each response includes per-turn usage.input_tokens. The supervisor accumulates these across turns and compares against the known context window size (200K for Sonnet, 1M for Opus) to estimate fullness.

The result message also provides cost_usd, useful for per-agent budget tracking.

Context exhaustion and shift-changes

When an agent's estimated context usage crosses a threshold (e.g., 80% of window):

1. Supervisor tells the agent to produce a handoff summary.
2. Agent writes the summary to the project wiki.
3. Agent posts a notice to its task channel and #standup-{slug} that it's handing off.
4. Supervisor kills the session.
5. Supervisor spawns a replacement with a new name from the names file and the wiki handoff page as initial context.

This is the "shift change" pattern — natural for an org metaphor. When Ramona leaves and Jules arrives, everyone in the channel can see the transition.

Git strategy

Multiple agents edit the same repos simultaneously. Branch isolation via git worktrees.

Worktree lifecycle

The supervisor creates worktrees before spawning agents. Agents never touch git worktree add/remove.

~/projects/repo/                        # bind-mounted, main branch (protected)
~/projects/repo/.worktrees/
  agent-task-42/                        # worktree for task 42
  agent-task-71/                        # worktree for task 71

Supervisor sequence per task:

1. git worktree add .worktrees/agent-task-{id} -b task/{id}
2. Spawn agent session with cwd set to the worktree
3. Pass the branch name in the agent's system prompt

Branch and merge strategy

• Main branch is protected. Agents never get the main worktree path, only task worktree paths.
• Agents commit freely to their task/{id} branch and push when done.
• Human PM merges. No auto-merge for MVP. The supervisor or EM can rebase branches and annotate PRs, but the merge button stays with the human.
• Conflict prevention: the EM avoids assigning overlapping file sets to concurrent agents. When conflicts happen anyway, the supervisor flags them for human resolution.

Cleanup

• Normal completion: supervisor waits for push, then git worktree remove. Branch retained until merged.
• Agent crash: supervisor commits any uncommitted work with [INCOMPLETE] prefix, removes worktree, flags task for reassignment.
• On supervisor restart: reconcile state against git worktree list, clean up orphans.

Architecture components

Three independent components, deployed separately for independent failure domains:

1. ergo IRCd

• Runs in an LXC container on a Proxmox server (16GB RAM).
• Set-and-forget after initial configuration.
• IRCv3 chathistory enabled for convenience, but not load-bearing — sprint state lives on the wiki.
• maxline capability enabled for longer messages.
• No TLS needed for LAN traffic in MVP.

2. IRC MCP bridge (FastMCP)

• ~200 lines of Python.
• Wraps the transport abstraction with IRC backend.
• Exposes the five tools above.
• Negotiates maxline with ergo; chunks messages transparently if needed.
• Connects to ergo over LAN.
• Runs in a Docker container on the desktop.

3. Agent supervisor

• Python process using the Claude Code SDK.
• Spawns and manages agent sessions (EM, managers, workers).
• Watches IRC for TASK: prefixes to push-dispatch agents.
• Monitors context usage (accumulated input tokens per session).
• Handles shift-changes (summarize to wiki → kill → respawn with wiki context).
• Runs the Haiku idle-checker.
• Creates and cleans up git worktrees.
• Runs in a Docker container on the desktop, alongside the bridge.
• Bind-mounts the project directory from the host.

Desktop (128GB RAM)                    Proxmox (16GB RAM)
┌──────────────────────────────┐      ┌──────────────────┐
│ docker-compose               │      │ LXC container    │
│ ┌────────────┐ ┌───────────┐│      │ ┌──────────────┐ │
│ │ Supervisor │ │ IRC MCP   ││ LAN  │ │    ergo      │ │
│ │   (SDK)    │ │  Bridge   ││◄────►│ │    IRCd      │ │
│ └────────────┘ └───────────┘│      │ └──────────────┘ │
│ bind: ~/projects            │      └──────────────────┘
└──────────────────────────────┘
        ▲
        │ IRC client (terminal) or Claude.ai (PM delegate)
        PM

Agents receive two MCP server configs:

1. IRC bridge — communication with other agents and the PM
2. robot.wtf wiki — persistent shared state (sprint status, handoff summaries, task specs, decisions)

Relationship to existing Agent_Workflow

What carries forward unchanged:

• Role definitions (manager, implementer, test runner, Groucho/Chico/Zeppo/Fixer/Documenter)
• The proceed workflow (plan → implement → test → review → fix → document)
• Model assignments (Opus for EM and managers, Sonnet for workers, Haiku for idle detection and documentation)
• Review and fix loop limits (3 attempts before escalating)
• Worker dispatch guidance (what context to give each worker type)

What changes:

• Coordination moves from in-process Task/run_in_background to IRC channel messages via MCP
• The orchestrator role splits: strategic coordination stays with the EM, human interaction moves to the channel
• Question relay is replaced by direct channel participation — the PM is in the room (or their Claude.ai delegate is)
• Task state lives on the wiki, conversation happens on IRC
• Claude Code CLI replaced by Claude Code SDK for programmatic lifecycle management

MVP scope

1. ergo IRCd in LXC on Proxmox. Single binary, default config, enable chathistory and maxline.
2. IRC MCP bridge (~200 lines Python). FastMCP wrapping the transport abstraction. Five tools. Docker container.
3. Agent supervisor — Python, Claude Code SDK, Haiku idle-checker, shift-change logic, worktree management. Docker container.
4. docker-compose for bridge + supervisor on the desktop, bind-mounting the project directory.
5. robot.wtf project wiki for shared state (already exists).
6. One EM process — Opus, system-prompted as the engineering manager.
7. One manager process — spawned when the EM posts a task.
8. PM — connected to ergo from terminal (weechat/irssi).
9. One end-to-end task — EM assigns, manager runs the proceed workflow, PM observes from IRC, state persisted to wiki.

Not in MVP: multiple parallel workers, TLS, remote MCP auth (for Claude.ai PM delegate), multi-project namespacing, Matrix/Zulip backends, polling backoff.

Future: PM delegate via Claude.ai

Once the IRC MCP bridge is exposed as a remote MCP server (with auth), a Claude.ai session can connect to it and act as the PM's delegate. The PM talks to Claude.ai from their phone or browser; Claude.ai participates in IRC channels on their behalf. This replaces the need for a mobile IRC client entirely.

This requires the bridge to be internet-accessible with authentication — not in MVP scope, but the architecture supports it naturally since the bridge already multiplexes by sender.

Open questions

• ergo maxline default. Verify the actual default and maximum configurable value. Agent plan summaries could be multi-KB.
• SDK query() API stability. The session resume API (resume option) needs verification against current SDK version. Field names may have changed.

Resolved questions

• Structured vs. conversational task format. Conversational wins. The whole point of using IRC is human observability. The only structured convention is a TASK: prefix on assignments.
• CLI vs. SDK. SDK. The CLI's terminal processing is overhead for daemon use.
• Single process vs. separate bridge and supervisor. Separate. Independent failure domains.
• Launch-per-task vs. long-running agents. Long-running. Preserves context across related tasks.
• Deployment topology. ergo in LXC on Proxmox, bridge + supervisor in docker-compose on desktop (128GB RAM).
• Polling strategy. Two-layer: supervisor push for immediate dispatch, flat 30s polling as fallback/health check. Backoff deferred.
• Git branch strategy. Supervisor-managed worktrees, branch-per-task, human merges, protected main.
• Context monitoring. Supervisor accumulates usage.input_tokens per turn from SDK responses. No built-in SDK metric.
• Durable state. robot.wtf project wiki via MCP. IRC is ephemeral conversation, wiki is the record. EM recovery reads wiki, not IRC history.
• Mobile IRC client. Deferred. PM uses terminal for MVP. Future path: Claude.ai as PM delegate via remote MCP, bypassing the mobile client problem entirely.