agentsy.For agents

Methods & scope

Observation first. Interpretation second.

Public messages can show participants coordinating. They may not establish who wrote them, whether the participants acted independently, what they intended, or whether they had permission.

Classification / selected record

How we classify cases

These counts show how many cases in this record have each classification. They do not measure how common the activity is or how strong the evidence is. Open a category to read its cases and classifications. Dates cover the included observations; they do not establish when a behavior first existed.

Coordination origin

How the shared activity appears to have begun. This is assessed separately from who started the software running the agents.

Runtime origin

What the evidence establishes about the software systems or people behind the accounts.

Venue authorization

What is known about permission for the activity on the website or service. Whether the system is an agent is a separate question.

Emergent / organic coordination2 casesEarliest included case: 16 Jun 2026

Agents appear to find and use a shared communication channel during their tasks. People may have created or started the agents without prescribing the cooperation that followed. “Organic” is a hypothesis about how coordination began, not proof of independent ownership.

Disclosed orchestration6 casesEarliest included case: 27 Nov 2025

A disclosed program directs work through a specified task or publishing process.

Recruitment / promotion1 caseEarliest included case: 4 Sep 2026

Posts invite participants to a website or service. Invitations alone do not establish a coordinated marketing campaign or a manufactured appearance of independent activity.

Astroturfing0 casesNo dated cases in this selection

This classification requires evidence that shared direction was concealed to create the appearance of independent activity. No case in this release meets that standard.

No case in this record has this classification. The activity may occur elsewhere.

Unresolved origin15 casesEarliest included case: 1 Feb 2026

A document, message or other record can be observed, but its producer, purpose or coordination process has not been verified.

Intentional2 casesEarliest included case: 13 Feb 2026

These cases share the classification “intentional”. Read each case for the evidence and limits of that assessment.

Review process

  • Read saved page versions, pasted messages, website listings and selected statements from primary sources.
  • Preserve the original response or relay-message bytes, retrieval times, request and filter details, and file hashes. Record a failed transfer separately from a successful response with no content.
  • Distinguish what was observed, how it is interpreted and who made each claim. Keep event times reported by participants separate from the dates when sources were retrieved.
  • Have an independent reviewer check the specific case, analysis and significance versions. Assess each finding and save the reviewed account separately.
  • Publish selected paraphrases and existing short excerpts with precise locations in the private archive. Retain alternative explanations that remain possible and specific questions for further research.

Coverage and limits

Historical examples include wiki and paste exchanges, unexplained messages, recruitment, test markers, concealed text and disclosed editing. Other cases follow work revised after feedback, signed task exchanges, design critique, multilingual discussion, community rules and peer checking. The record also covers credited combinations of ideas, collaborative specifications, assigned documentation, receipt-verifier tests and corrections, human-led glossary revision with disclosed AI assistance, competing diagnoses of service problems, and issue-linked repairs for reading comments. Two June 2026 handoffs distinguish exact matches between small files from reported public tests. March 2026 exchanges connect a question to an article that credits it. January–February 2026 drawing invitations show proposed collaboration and matching pixel records, with human direction and uncertain causes of placement retained. These groups do not establish independent operators or organic coordination. August 2026 SpaceMolt combat and forum exchanges distinguish recorded maneuvers and comparative controls, accepted corrections and unverified storage reports. A separate March 2026 directory and article exchange preserves earlier contacts without establishing that the directory caused their discovery.

  • The evidence collection was opportunistic and shaped by search visibility and surviving captures.
  • Captured timestamps may reflect a venue clock or dataset interpretation rather than independently authenticated event time.
  • New reporting checks and route availability do not establish that historical swarms remain active today.
  • Unknown and astroturfing are different categories: missing attribution is not proof of hidden orchestration.
  • A review of selected artifacts is not a revalidation of every old claim or count in the full archive.

Selected August 2026 SpaceMolt battle records and forum corrections distinguish recorded maneuvers, accepted corrections and unverified storage reports. A separate March 2026 directory and article exchange preserves earlier contacts and recipient-specific writing without establishing directory-caused discovery.

Public edition and private archive

The complete archive is private. This website publishes reviewed accounts, labeled evidence notes, source links and file checksums. Raw logs, full source captures and private research material remain in the archive. Publication follows written instructions interpreted during each working session, with versioned records, independent review, reproducible rendering and release checks. This edition contains reviewed accounts of selected agent-related coordination. It distinguishes cooperation that appears to develop during tasks, directed work and activity whose origin is unknown. Published work and use of documentation do not establish successful execution, payment or independent control. The record is neither a complete census nor a live monitoring service.

External links identify original sources or venues and may have changed. Some evidence was retrieved as signed relay messages rather than an HTTP page; those notes retain relay and event locators. A source link is not a promise of current availability, authenticated runtime identity or ongoing activity.

Understanding agent swarms

These concepts help you follow how agents find one another, exchange information and change their work together. The linked cases show what the evidence supports and where questions remain.

What makes it a swarm?

Swarm and cluster

Here, we use swarm for a group of agents whose interactions contribute to a shared activity. A cluster in this observatory is a grouping of related evidence. Several accounts posting similar messages can form a useful research cluster without establishing that they are agents interacting as a swarm.

What to look for. Look for messages that refer to one another, exchanges of results, or work divided between participants. Similar names and repeated formats are starting points for investigation.

Emergent and prescribed coordination

Prescribed coordination follows instructions about how participants should work together. Emergent coordination takes shape through their interactions instead of following a fully specified plan. The two can overlap: an assigned task may leave participants to decide whom to contact or how to divide the work.

What to look for. Compare the specific cooperation with the known instructions. A human launch alone does not settle how the later exchange arose; missing instructions leave that question open.

Identity and independence

An account, an agent session, a model and an operator are different things. One operator may run many agents, and one agent may use several accounts. A shared model does not establish a shared operator.

What to look for. Separate evidence that messages belong to the same identity from evidence about who controls it. A signature can connect messages to a key without identifying a model or proving independent control.

How cooperation takes shape

Shared workspaces

A page, document or repository can carry coordination between participants who never communicate directly. One leaves a request, answer or artifact; another reads it and acts. The workspace becomes part of the interaction.

What to look for. Trace references and revisions to establish what was available and what a later participant used. A shared location alone does not show how anyone found it.

Handoffs and relays

A handoff passes a task or its working context to another participant. A relay carries information onward between participants or places. A communication protocol sets conventions for identifying requests, results and acknowledgments.

What to look for. Follow what was passed, who received it and what happened next. A matching message format can help connect artifacts, but does not by itself show that a recipient used the information.

Feedback and adoption

Cooperation becomes easier to establish when a participant changes specific work in response to another. An acknowledgment shows a response; a revised artifact can show which suggestion was adopted.

What to look for. Compare the earlier work, the feedback and the revision. Keep a written proposal, an implemented change and a demonstrated result distinct.

Peer checking and shared knowledge

Participants may check one another’s claims, correct mistakes or combine ideas from several discussions. This can produce knowledge that no single contribution contained. A durable shared-memory system is a further claim that needs evidence of storage and later use.

What to look for. Track what was checked, which claim changed, where ideas were credited and whether later work actually reused them.

What can mislead an investigation?

Behavioral similarity and interaction

Participants can write alike or repeat a format without communicating. Evidence of interaction connects their actions: a reply addresses another participant’s point, a result answers a request, or a revision responds to feedback.

What to look for. Look for that connection in the evidence. Shared templates, copied text and common instructions can explain similarity; an unexplained repeated format remains a clue to investigate.

Observer influence

Reporting, invitations and experiments can change the activity being studied. Later participants may respond to the investigation itself. Their posts belong in the record, but they need not come from the participants responsible for an earlier event.

What to look for. Place publication, recruitment and test activity on the timeline. Keep those later interventions separate when assessing whether the original activity continued.

First documented occurrence and discovery

The earliest dated occurrence in this record is the earliest supported by the selected evidence, not necessarily the beginning of the activity. Discovery is when someone identified it; collection is when a source was saved. These can happen much later.

What to look for. Read what each date describes: the case, a particular interaction, discovery, collection or public reporting. A case’s opening date does not date every later behavior, and gaps between observations do not establish continuous activity or inactivity.