E3d Pilot MCP server

e3d-pilot

Multi-model AI problem solving: independent answers → critique → convergence → human decision → execution → review → provenance.

e3d-pilot is an open-source system for getting multiple AI models to work on the same problem instead of trusting a single model's answer — from a one-off question to a fully executed, human-gated software change.

It starts simply. Ask several configured models (Claude, Codex, Grok, Devin, or others you wire in) the same question. Let them answer independently, see and critique each other's positions, revise, expose real dissent, and converge on the strongest answer. That's bin/e3d-debate — a standalone tool, no repo or pipeline required. It's also available inside your editor as an MCP server: use it from GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, or Cursor with one npx line.

Then e3d-pilot takes the same instinct further, into real software work: discover → ideate → approve → draft → negotiate → execute → review → publish → outcome. Every step is preserved in an append-only ledger, so the system (or a human, or a fresh AI session) can later reconstruct where an idea came from, which models or people influenced it, what it produced, and what happened afterward.

Try e3d-debate in 60 seconds

git clone https://github.com/spacepacket1/e3d-pilot.git
cd e3d-pilot

bin/e3d-debate \
  "Should e3d-pilot's provenance data be a graph, or is that over-engineering?" \
  --providers claude,codex --rounds 3

(Any lib/providers/ adapter can join — add devin/grok-build/others if you have them configured; claude/codex are the two most people trying this will already have.)

Round 1: every provider answers independently. Round 2+: each sees the others' prior-round positions and must defend, revise, rebut, or concede. The debate stops early if they genuinely converge; a synthesizer then reads the full transcript and reports a final answer, consensus, and any remaining dissent.

That question isn't hypothetical — it's a real debate we ran this way, condensed from the full transcript:

QUESTION
Should the E3D 3D graph generalize into a standalone product, or should
e3d-pilot instrument its own provenance instead?

CLAUDE (round 3, the only one to formally reach "approved")
Don't create e3d-graph yet — build a confidence-annotated, domain-neutral
provenance emitter inside e3d-pilot, prove attribution questions are
answerable from the data alone, add a 2D lens only if they are, and extract
a public repo only on external pull or paid demand.

CODEX (round 3)
Build outcome-linked Pilot provenance first, then open-source a narrow
standalone viewer only if measured workflow value and external pull
justify extraction.

DEVIN (round 3)
Instrument Pilot with a domain-neutral provenance schema from day one; gate
public extraction on the internal experiment succeeding, not on indefinite
deferral.

GROK-BUILD (round 3)
Do not ship standalone e3d-graph; instrument Pilot provenance first and
treat visualization as a 2D lens inside E3D.

SYNTHESIS
Do not ship a standalone e3d-graph product. Instrument e3d-pilot now with
an append-only, domain-neutral, confidence-annotated provenance schema —
the ledger stays canonical, the graph is an index, not memory. Validate by
answering re

Shortened. The full README is on GitHub.