A decent idea, however it seems to me a good chunk of it is because of git limitations. Have you looked jj?

I'm having a much better time with jj and a workspace per subagent than I was with git and worktrees.

It's still useful to have the CI gating on updating the master branch pointer, but you largely stop working with branches once you switch to jj.

git worktrees are a horrible misfeature; it's better to just clone multiple times (which you can do locally---space is saved by use of hard links!)

So that is to say, we clone some remote upstream down to /path/A. Then we can clone file:///path/A to /path/B locally. Both A and B are fully fleded git repos; no monkeying around with worktrees. The objects are shared between them with hard links. You can edit B/.gitconfig to point it to have the same upstream as A for pushing.

Unlike worktrees, you can blow away a repo with "rm -rf", and not worry that you are pulling the rug from under something which depends on it. If I have several trees, A, B, C, one of which is the parent, while the other are worktrees, removing any one of them randomly is Russian roulette: if we do "rm -rf B" and that happens to be the parent repo, worktrees A and C are no longer functional and need to be recovered. If A, B, and C are independent clones (even with objects hardlinked among themselves), this isn't a problem.

Giving up branches is the dream. This feels like the nudge I needed to give jj a proper go. Thank you.