An AI colleague should stay with an assignment after delivering its first answer. When someone corrects a detail or asks for a revision, that reply should reach the work already underway. If a manager has to copy the discussion into a separate session every time, the manager is still doing the coordination the agent was supposed to help with.
DeepSeek’s Super-agent research prototype, in a public repository created October 31, offers a concrete version of that idea. It serves one GitHub repository, can also listen to Feishu workplace chat, and returns results to the conversation where the request began. The authors explicitly describe it as research code and warn that it remains outside their official production products.
The interesting part is the working relationship it proposes.
In brief: Ask your AI vendor to demonstrate a follow-up exchange after the first result. Can a teammate correct the assignment where the work already lives, and can the agent continue without someone becoming its messenger?
Give the next reply somewhere to go
Consider a hypothetical operations team preparing a supplier comparison. A manager asks an agent for a draft. A colleague replies in the same discussion that one supplier’s delivery estimate is wrong. Purchasing adds a revised quote.
I would expect a collaborator to take up those corrections as part of the existing assignment. That should spare the manager another window, a reconstructed brief, and an explanation of which answer is now obsolete.
DeepSeek’s domain documentation describes how discussion threads remain connected to work items. Later messages can reach the existing assignment; a human follow-up can resume work that has ended, subject to the system’s rules. Related conversations can also provide context without granting permission to do more.
That distinction matters. Learning that a supplier has changed its price is information. Being authorized to accept the new price is a different thing.
The supplier example is my proposed application of the pattern; the prototype is for coding work. But leaders buying agents for other functions can ask for the same continuity in the products they evaluate.
Otherwise, every correction becomes another handoff for the manager.
Collaboration includes knowing when to interrupt
A shared agent also needs judgment about when to bring people back into the work.
DeepSeek’s philosophy document treats human attention as a cost. It calls for results, concrete questions, and honest reports of failure to return to the original conversation. It also places responsibility on the operator to correct noisy behavior rather than bury colleagues in explanations of the noise.
Silence has a cost, too. If an agent has been working for an hour and nobody knows whether it’s stuck, somebody will have to ask. I want progress messages that tell me enough to leave it alone or step in. A running commentary on every tool call would just give me more to read.
There is already evidence that people are managing several agents at once. A June 25 study of Codex usage reported that more than 10% of users managed three or more concurrent agents at some point each week. It also reported active users growing more than fivefold in the first half of 2026. These findings measure usage; equivalent productivity gains would require separate evidence.
The buying question is whether more concurrent work leaves the manager with fewer interruptions or simply more conversations to supervise.
Ask for a follow-up demonstration
For your next vendor meeting, prepare one harmless assignment with a known answer. Use sample material and keep external messages, purchases, and live record changes out of scope.
Let the agent produce a draft. Then have another permitted teammate correct a fact in the original discussion. Ask for a revision there, without pasting the original brief into a new session.
Watch whether it updates the existing work or starts a duplicate. Ask it to identify the correction it used. Finally, introduce a request outside the agreed assignment and inspect how it handles the boundary.
DeepSeek’s authorization documentation separates new-work decisions from messages delivered as context. Its three modes for inferred work are off, observe, and auto; observe is the default and records what it would accept without starting that inferred work. That is a documented design choice; independent assurance that every boundary works correctly would require further testing.
For your demonstration, decide in advance which follow-ups should continue the task and which require a fresh decision. An ordinary correction should continue under the existing brief; an expanded assignment should require new permission.
Make supervision a place to decide
DeepSeek’s panel documentation orders supervision around three questions: what needs a person now, whether the system is healthy, and what happened in a particular piece of work. Activity counts cover the last 24 hours, but the immediate human decision comes first.
That is the direction I would ask vendors to demonstrate: show me the unfinished decision before the activity total.
This belongs in the agentic organization, where people and agents share ongoing responsibilities. Start with one assignment that a second teammate can join. Keep the source discussion connected to the result, and make the next required decision visible.
Then let that teammate send the correction. The manager should be able to stay out of it.
Research and draft: Mai. Direction and voice framework: John Lipe. Last updated: November 2, 2026.