openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Feature Request] Add team/project grouping in agent session list (UI hierarchical view) [1 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#69668Fetched 2026-04-22 07:49:34
View on GitHub
Comments
0
Participants
1
Timeline
0
Reactions
0
Participants

Code Example

session list
├── main
├── reviewer
├── pm
├── director
├── frontend
├── backend
└── qa

---

Asset Management Platform (team/group)
├── Product Manager
├── Development Director
├── Frontend Developer
├── Backend Developer
└── QA Engineer

Marketing System (team/group)
├── Product Manager
├── Development Director
├── Frontend Developer
├── Backend Developer
└── QA Engineer
RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Feature Request: Team/Project Grouping in Session List

Problem / Use Case

When managing multiple development teams (e.g., an Asset Management team, a Marketing team, an HR system team), each team consists of 5 agents (PM, Director, Frontend, Backend, QA). Currently all agents appear as flat, independent nodes in the session list:

session list
├── main
├── reviewer
├── pm
├── director
├── frontend
├── backend
└── qa

For teams with distinct responsibilities, it would be much clearer to have a hierarchical view:

Asset Management Platform (team/group)
├── Product Manager
├── Development Director
├── Frontend Developer
├── Backend Developer
└── QA Engineer

Marketing System (team/group)
├── Product Manager
├── Development Director
├── Frontend Developer
├── Backend Developer
└── QA Engineer

Desired Behavior

  1. A team/group acts as a parent node in the session list
  2. Child agents are nested under the team parent
  3. Each team has its own isolated agents and sessions
  4. Teams can be created/managed independently

Example Use Case

A company has multiple development teams:

  • Asset Management Platform team (zichan-pm, zichan-director, zichan-frontend, zichan-backend, zichan-qa)
  • Marketing System team (marketing-pm, marketing-director, marketing-frontend, marketing-backend, marketing-qa)
  • HR System team (hr-pm, hr-director, hr-frontend, hr-backend, hr-qa)

Each team has its own PM who receives requirements via WeChat/other channels and coordinates internally.

Proposed Solutions (in order of preference)

  1. Built-in team/group concept: Add native support for team/project entities that can contain multiple agents, with a parent node in the UI
  2. Workspace-based grouping: Use workspace hierarchy to infer team structure in the UI
  3. Configurable tags/metadata: Allow agents to have a team or group metadata field that controls UI grouping

Alternatives Considered

Using agent ID prefixes (e.g., zichan-pm, marketing-pm) provides visual clarity but does not create a real hierarchical structure in the session list. All agents remain flat and equal.


Version: 2026.4.15 Channel: control-ui

extent analysis

TL;DR

Implement a team/group concept in the session list by introducing a parent node for each team, allowing for a hierarchical view of agents.

Guidance

  • Introduce a team or group metadata field for agents to control UI grouping, as proposed in the third solution.
  • Use the workspace hierarchy to infer team structure in the UI, as suggested in the second solution.
  • Consider adding native support for team/project entities that can contain multiple agents, as proposed in the first solution.
  • Evaluate the trade-offs between the proposed solutions, considering factors such as complexity, flexibility, and user experience.

Example

No code snippet is provided, as the issue focuses on conceptual solutions rather than specific implementations.

Notes

The proposed solutions have different implications for the system's architecture and user interface. Carefully evaluating these trade-offs is essential to determine the best approach.

Recommendation

Apply the Configurable tags/metadata solution, as it seems to be the most flexible and easiest to implement, allowing for a balance between complexity and user experience.

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Feature Request] Add team/project grouping in agent session list (UI hierarchical view) [1 participants]