Antigravity Swarm shares a workspace by default, with separate working copies optional

Antigravity Swarm’s agents start with separate conversations, but share the workspace where they work by default. Separate repository copies are an option, not a universal starting condition. Superpower Daily’s documentation comparison finds a related distinction in Cursor: Projects organizes teamwork, while its worktree feature separately describes how agents edit isolated copies of code.

The important qualification for Cursor is that the reviewed records do not establish automatic worktree assignment for every Projects worker. That is not evidence that Cursor lacks isolation. It means a team’s shared plans and its agents’ editing locations are different controls—and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Original analysis: We compared four public records covering Cursor Projects, its multiplayer announcement, Cursor worktrees and Antigravity Swarm across six dimensions: participants, context, ownership, communication, checkout isolation and integration. The requested cutoff was November 11, 2026, at 16:30:52 UTC; snapshots were retrieved at 16:31:59 UTC, so their exact cutoff state cannot be certified. We ran no agents, induced no conflicts and tested no merges or security boundaries. This is a documentation comparison, not a performance ranking.

Assigning work before agents touch the code

Cursor’s November 10 multiplayer announcement supplies the immediate context. Its shared task board shows ownership, agent activity and the pull request associated with each task. Cursor illustrates coordinators detecting overlapping plans and sequencing dependent work: for example, agreeing on the order of a database-schema change and a feature that reads from it.

Swarm makes the assignment process explicit. The invoking conversation becomes a coordinator, which divides the task and delegates technical work. Each worker starts with a clean conversation and a public brief stating what it owns, what it must not touch and what completion means. The brief gives other workers a visible account of responsibility.

The coordination evidence deserves weight, but not more than it supports. Cursor’s conflict-avoidance examples are illustrations, not measured reductions in conflicts. Neither those examples nor Swarm’s ownership briefs establish filesystem-enforced exclusive ownership. Cursor’s Projects records also do not specify an exclusive file lock or an indivisible task-claim operation that prevents competing claims.

Different boundaries for people, memory and messages

The products organize different groups. Cursor supports multiple human teammates, each with a coordinator, workers and their own billing identity. Sharing requires a team account, Cursor 3.26.13 or later, an invitation or eligible shared link, and repository access. Swarm describes coordination around the invoking conversation; its reviewed page leaves equivalent cross-teammate membership controls unspecified.

Cursor separates shared knowledge from personal context. Every member’s agents can read and write the Project store, whose files synchronize across cloud and local agent machines. Each person also has a separate store for preferences and skills. Copying personal preferences into Project rules requires approval, rather than automatically exposing them to colleagues’ agents.

Cross-teammate messages take a restricted route. Cursor labels them as untrusted agent input and delivers them to side chats. According to its documentation, these chats only answer: they cannot change the task board or manage routines, and never share secrets, credentials or tokens. Sharing personal files or connector data requires asking first.

Swarm instead puts assignments, worker questions, change summaries and test results on one shared board. Workers do not privately message one another, keeping those exchanges in an ordered record. Direct user messages are an explicit exception: a person can contact a worker without that message appearing on the board. Its visibility rule covers worker-to-worker exchanges, not every interaction.

The work still has to reach the repository

Cursor’s separate-checkout feature is a concrete counterweight to any suggestion that coordination is its only control. A worktree is a separate Git checkout with its own files and changes. Configurable setup includes dependency installation and environment-file copying, so the documentation addresses preparing that working copy as well as creating it.

Integration is a later decision. Cursor documents reviewing worktree results, then continuing there, creating a commit or pull request, or bringing changes into the main workspace. Its /best-of-n command runs competing attempts in separate worktrees but explicitly does not merge their results automatically. Comparing candidates and accepting their changes are separate operations.

Swarm connects verification with cleanup. The coordinator usually adds a verifier to inspect code changes, run tests and return problems to the responsible worker. Removing a worker deletes its working copy, so the coordinator has it land changes first. That sequence makes preserving completed work part of managing the worker’s lifecycle.

Swarm’s page does not define a merge-conflict algorithm or a mandatory human merge-approval gate. Its separate working copies also should not be assumed to be Git worktrees. These are material limits on the comparison, not proof of missing capabilities. Neither product’s reviewed records establish universally conflict-free merges.

For teams evaluating either system, the practical next step is to verify where workers edit and how their changes reach the repository. Watch for explicit checkout-assignment details and runtime evidence following changes through review and integration. Those would help connect the documented coordination process to the editing and merge behavior this comparison did not test.