Orcho in 5 minutes
Plain-language start
Your AI agent says “done” — then you find it quietly broke something that worked, or skipped the test. Orcho sits around the agent like a supervisor: it makes the agent plan first, checks the result, and refuses to call unfinished work “ready”. This page follows one task through Orcho, start to finish, in plain words.
1. You give a task
Section titled “1. You give a task”It starts with one task — the thing you want done.
Add validation to the login endpointIn a normal agent session, that task becomes one long chat. You have to remember what was planned, what changed, whether the tests ran, and whether the final “done” is true. Orcho keeps the task inside a run — a single tracked piece of work with a beginning, checks, and an end.
2. Pick how careful to be
Section titled “2. Pick how careful to be”Before anything happens, Orcho needs to know how careful to be. That is all a profile is: not a theme, not a setting screen — just the level of strictness for this task.
For this story the task is a real feature, so it uses the feature profile —
the careful one.
Orcho Run 20260629_1427 profile=featureThat single line means: this work gets planned, written, reviewed, repaired if needed, and checked before it counts as ready. Want the deeper model later? Read Profile semantics.
3. The steps
Section titled “3. The steps”With feature, Orcho runs the task through a fixed set of steps, in order:
plan → write code → review → fix if needed → final check → doneEach step has one job. Planning happens before code. Reviewing is separate from writing, so the work gets a real second look. The final check is its own gate, so “the code compiles” and “this is ready to ship” are not the same thing.
The shorthand you’ll see in the terminal
Orcho shows those same steps compressed into one line. It looks dense at first — here is how to read it:
⟳² (▶ plan [Claude] → · validate_plan [Codex]) → · implement [Claude]
→ ⟳² (· review_changes [Codex] → · repair_changes [Claude])
→ · final_acceptance [Codex]⟳² this part can repeat (up to a limit)▶ the step running now· a step waiting its turn[Claude] the agent doing the work[Codex] a different agent doing the reviewTwo different agents on purpose: one writes, another reviews — so the work does not get to grade its own homework. See Watch the run for the full live view.
4. The agent writes the code
Section titled “4. The agent writes the code”The “write code” step is where the AI agent actually edits your project. Orcho does not replace the agent — it still does the real work.
The difference is that the agent is now boxed inside steps:
- the task already has a profile, so the agent knows how careful to be;
- the plan came first, so it is not improvising;
- the review step that comes next knows what to check;
- the proof at the end points to real files, not vibes.
[IMPLEMENT] edited api/auth.py and tests5. Review catches what “done” hides
Section titled “5. Review catches what “done” hides”This is the moment that matters. Not when the agent says “done” — when a review step decides whether the work is actually ready.
[REVIEW_CHANGES] verdict=REJECTED blocker missing negative-path test fix add a test for invalid input
[REPAIR_CHANGES] added the missing testA normal chat would have ended at a confident “done”. Orcho stopped, named the exact problem, sent it back to be fixed, and kept that decision in plain view. That is the whole pitch: it catches the “looks done but isn’t” case that costs you hours.
Want the deeper version of this idea? Read False-ready delivery.
6. The final check
Section titled “6. The final check”The last step asks one question: is this really ready to ship?
[FINAL_ACCEPTANCE] verdict=APPROVED ship_ready yesIf it says no, you do not get a vague failure. You get the blocker and the next move — fix it, follow up, or pause for your decision. Either way, nothing broken slips through wearing a “done” label.
7. The proof it leaves behind
Section titled “7. The proof it leaves behind”When the run ends, you are not stuck trusting a chat scrollback. Orcho leaves files behind:
output.log the full run, as it happenedevents.jsonl the timeline of what happened, in orderplan.md the plan it agreed to followreview.json what the review founddiff.patch exactly what changed in your codeYou — or a teammate, or a tool — can open these later and see what happened, why it was accepted, and what was checked. No need to reconstruct it from memory.
Read Evidence bundle for what the proof contains, or Read the result for the first thing to open after a run.