AINEWS
Superlogical, Mitchell Hashimoto's new startup, argues the terminal was designed for one human at one screen, not for multiple long running AI coding agents.
Running multiple AI coding agents in parallel means learning a new habit: reattach to the session, check whether the agent is still thinking, decide whether to wait, then move to the next. The terminals developers have used for decades, built around tools like tmux, were not designed for that loop. As one analyst puts it: tmux-class tools are not built for agents that run for hours in the background, and the manual-reconnect pain grows as enterprises run multiple autonomous coding agents in parallel.
Mitchell Hashimoto says the answer is to rebuild the primitive rather than patch it. His new company, Superlogical, is built around a single premise: the terminal should be a persistent execution layer shared between humans and AI coding agents, not a window one of them happens to be watching.
The mechanism is a server-side multiplexer that treats the session, not the screen, as the source of truth. When a developer disconnects from a mobile client and reconnects from a laptop, or when an agent pauses and a human steps in, the state of the session lives on the server. The server streams raw terminal data to clients, which then independently reconstruct the same session using Hashimoto's libghostty rendering engine, rather than relying on a single client to keep the canonical view in sync.
That design choice is a deliberate break with tmux, the multiplexer that has anchored Unix-style development for years. tmux was built so a single user could detach from a session, walk away, and reattach later. It has no notion of agent state, no sense of whether a process is still thinking, blocked on approval, or idle. The manual-reconnect loop is the visible symptom of a deeper mismatch: the session primitive was designed for a human pacing the work, and the work has changed underneath it.
Superlogical's clients target desktop, mobile, and web, with the pitch that a developer can move between surfaces and stay attached to the same coding session. The promised benefits, including fewer interruptions, simpler remote development, and smoother handoffs between human and agent, are the kind of claims dev-tools companies have made for years, which is why the framing here is worth separating from the product. Hashimoto's argument is not that the terminal is ugly or that a better mobile client is overdue. It is that the terminal layer is the wrong primitive for an era in which the primary session-holder may be an agent rather than a person.
By putting authoritative session state on the server and rebuilding rendering on each client with libghostty, Superlogical is trying to make the session itself portable across devices, agents, and human handoffs. If that holds, the manual-reconnect loop stops being a developer tax and becomes a layer the infrastructure handles. If it does not, the bet reduces to a polished client over a familiar problem.
The bigger question is whether the terminal is even the right layer to re-engineer. Autonomous coding agents already run inside orchestrators, IDEs, and CI systems that track their own state. The risk Superlogical has to answer is that the real bottleneck sits upstream, in the agent loop, in the model, in the approval workflow, and that a better session model simply lets developers watch the same dysfunction more comfortably. The broader vision remains to be proven, and the framework Superlogical is selling has to be tested against the actual workflows of teams running agents in production, not just against the limits of tmux.
The first real signal will be whether teams running multiple agents in parallel adopt a session layer at all, or keep absorbing the manual-reconnect cost because the agents themselves still do not run long enough to make the fix worth it. Superlogical is now asking them to choose.