Yesterday a developer on r/PromptEngineering shipped Doogi, an AI workspace where conversations branch instead of running in a straight line. The twist is that the branches are the whole point.
What’s new
You know how a normal AI chat goes. You chase one idea, jump to another, and ten messages later the first idea is buried. Scrolling up to find that one good paragraph from earlier is a small tax you pay every single time. Doogi treats that as a design problem. Each direction becomes its own branch on a visual canvas, and your thinking shows up as connected nodes instead of one long scroll. Think of it as a mind map that the AI helps you grow, rather than a transcript you have to dig through.
Here’s what the builder says is in there so far:
- Branching conversations. Start with several AI perspectives and continue any branch on its own. Each branch keeps its own thread, so a tangent about pricing doesn’t muddy a thread about positioning.
- A visual workspace where you navigate by nodes, not chat history. You see the shape of the whole exploration at a glance, which is hard to get from a scrollbar.
- A Node Inspector for digging into one response and its context. This is handy when one answer looks great and you want to know what fed into it.
- Context and memory that stay available as branches multiply. That matters, because branching is only useful if the AI doesn’t forget what you told it three nodes ago.
- Research with supporting sources, so you can compare and synthesize.
- MCP integrations to plug in outside tools and data. If you already connect AI to your notes, files, or other services through MCP, that’s a natural fit.
The twist
The unexpected part is that you can create a new branch from an earlier point in the conversation. In a linear chat, going back means copy-pasting or starting over. Here, the road you didn’t take stays on the map. Say you asked for three taglines, picked the second, and spent twenty messages polishing it. Later you realize the third one had legs. In Doogi, you jump back to that node and branch from it, with everything you’ve built on the second tagline still sitting untouched. The builder’s pitch is that the goal isn’t more AI answers. It’s being able to explore, compare, and revisit ideas without losing the paths you skipped.
A mini-workflow to try it
I haven’t run Doogi myself, so this is how I’d test it based on what the post describes:
- 🧭 Pick a real decision you’re stuck on, like a pricing model, a product angle, or a content strategy. Real stakes make it obvious whether the tool helps or just looks pretty.
- 🌱 Start with a few different AI perspectives so you get contrasting takes from the first message. Ask for a skeptic, an optimist, and a practical operator if you can.
- 🔀 Continue the branch that feels most promising and leave the others alone. Resist the urge to nudge all of them at once.
- ⏪ Go back to an earlier node and branch off it with a different assumption. This is the move linear chat can’t do, so it’s the real test.
- 🔍 Open the Node Inspector on the strongest response and check its sources before you trust it. A confident answer with weak sources is still a weak answer.
Pro tips
- Name your branches by the assumption they test, not by topic. “Assume budget is tiny” beats “Idea 3”. Two weeks from now, you’ll still know why that branch exists.
- Compare branches side by side before you merge anything into a conclusion. The comparison is where the value is. Write one sentence per branch on what it got right and what it missed.
- If node-based interfaces feel unfamiliar, start with just two branches. The developer admits the learning curve is something they’re still working on, so go in expecting some friction.
- Keep one branch as your “control” where you ask the plain, unbiased question. It gives you a baseline to judge the more creative branches against.
Worth knowing
The post has 8 upvotes, so this is early. The developer is asking the right question themselves: does a branching workspace help you think, or does it just add complexity? One commenter said this is the interface they’ve been sketching in a notebook for months, because the linear chat format is a bottleneck for creative work. That’s one voice, not proof. Only your own test will tell you, and a single afternoon with a real problem is enough to find out.
Your move
Take it for a spin at doogi.it with one real problem, then go tell the developer on Reddit what worked and what confused you. They asked for constructive criticism, and early users shape tools like this. Specific feedback, like “I got lost when I had six branches open” or “I wanted to merge two nodes,” is worth far more than a generic thumbs up. ⚓
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does arranging nodes add extra work on top of the idea itself?
One reader worried that managing a canvas of boxes becomes its own job while they’re already juggling the idea. The developer admits the node interface is still being simplified for people who aren’t used to it, so that concern is fair. If the canvas feels like homework, try it on one real project and see whether the branches help you return to ideas or just sit there.
Q: Is branching worth it compared to a regular linear chat?
Other readers see the linear format as the biggest bottleneck for creative work, since early directions get buried as a chat grows. Branching tends to pay off when you’re weighing two or three real alternatives and want to keep each one intact. For quick factual questions, a single thread is probably less work, and sticking with it is a reasonable choice.
Q: How can I tell if branching adds clarity or just complexity?
Pick one real project and use the workspace for a week. At the end, check whether you actually went back to the branches you didn’t take. If you didn’t, the extra structure is probably overhead for the way you work.
I built Doogi — a visual AI workspace where conversations branch instead of staying linear
by u/Rich_Elevator3950 in PromptEngineering