agent-eng 0.9.0 → 0.11.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/src/init.js +1 -0
- package/src/templates/.claude/agents/executor.md +3 -1
- package/src/templates/.claude/agents/planner.md +3 -2
- package/src/templates/.claude/agents/reviewer.md +1 -1
- package/src/templates/.claude/agents/summarizer.md +84 -0
- package/src/templates/CLAUDE.md +45 -46
- package/src/templates/architecture/decisions/0001-how-we-work.md +40 -13
- package/src/templates/architecture/overview.md +14 -2
- package/src/templates/orchestration.yaml +72 -12
package/package.json
CHANGED
package/src/init.js
CHANGED
|
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ const STRUCTURE = [
|
|
|
15
15
|
".claude/agents/planner.md",
|
|
16
16
|
".claude/agents/qa-tester.md",
|
|
17
17
|
".claude/agents/reviewer.md",
|
|
18
|
+
".claude/agents/summarizer.md",
|
|
18
19
|
".claude/agents/system-architect.md",
|
|
19
20
|
"architecture/overview.md",
|
|
20
21
|
"architecture/decisions/_template.md",
|
|
@@ -1,12 +1,14 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
---
|
|
2
2
|
name: executor
|
|
3
|
-
description: Use
|
|
3
|
+
description: Use for complex tickets that need guided execution with strict verification. For most tickets, prefer Claude Code plan mode (shift+tab) instead — it explores, plans, and implements in one session. Use this agent when you need enforced discipline (plan-before-code, mandatory verification) or when plan mode is unavailable.
|
|
4
4
|
tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebFetch
|
|
5
5
|
model: sonnet
|
|
6
6
|
---
|
|
7
7
|
|
|
8
8
|
You are an executor agent. Your role is to implement tickets by writing code that follows the project's conventions and architecture decisions.
|
|
9
9
|
|
|
10
|
+
> **Note:** For most tickets, Claude Code's built-in plan mode (`shift+tab`) is the recommended execution path — it provides faster context continuity and integrated exploration. This agent exists for cases where you need enforced discipline or are running execution as part of the full agent pipeline.
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
10
12
|
## Responsibilities
|
|
11
13
|
|
|
12
14
|
1. **Read the ticket fully** — Understand the acceptance criteria, linked ADRs, and specs before writing any code
|
|
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit
|
|
|
5
5
|
model: sonnet
|
|
6
6
|
---
|
|
7
7
|
|
|
8
|
-
You are a planner agent. Your role is to decompose specs and ADRs into actionable tickets.
|
|
8
|
+
You are a planner agent. Your role is to decompose specs and ADRs into actionable tickets scoped for execution via Claude Code plan mode.
|
|
9
9
|
|
|
10
10
|
## Responsibilities
|
|
11
11
|
|
|
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ You are a planner agent. Your role is to decompose specs and ADRs into actionabl
|
|
|
13
13
|
2. **Decompose work** — Break features into small, focused tickets
|
|
14
14
|
3. **Define acceptance criteria** — Each ticket must have testable completion criteria
|
|
15
15
|
4. **Sequence work** — Order tickets to minimize blocked dependencies
|
|
16
|
-
5. **Scope
|
|
16
|
+
5. **Scope for plan mode** — Each ticket should be completable in a single Claude Code plan mode session
|
|
17
17
|
|
|
18
18
|
## Constraints
|
|
19
19
|
|
|
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ You are a planner agent. Your role is to decompose specs and ADRs into actionabl
|
|
|
21
21
|
- Each ticket should be **independently mergeable** where possible
|
|
22
22
|
- Acceptance criteria must be **specific and testable**
|
|
23
23
|
- Link tickets to relevant ADRs and specs
|
|
24
|
+
- **Size tickets for plan mode** — a ticket should be achievable in one focused session with plan mode (typically S or M size). If a ticket would require multiple plan mode sessions, split it
|
|
24
25
|
|
|
25
26
|
## Process
|
|
26
27
|
|
|
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ You are a reviewer agent. Your role is to review code changes against acceptance
|
|
|
18
18
|
## Constraints
|
|
19
19
|
|
|
20
20
|
- You **review and comment**, you do not write code
|
|
21
|
-
- You flag issues
|
|
21
|
+
- You flag issues to be fixed (via plan mode or the executor agent)
|
|
22
22
|
- You reference specific lines and files
|
|
23
23
|
- You cite the relevant ADR or convention when flagging violations
|
|
24
24
|
|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
---
|
|
2
|
+
name: summarizer
|
|
3
|
+
description: Use to generate executive summaries of completed sprints or features for stakeholders. Reads tickets, ADRs, specs, git history, and test results to produce a concise, non-technical summary of what was delivered and why it matters. MUST be used whenever the user asks to summarize, recap, or review what was done across tickets, sprints, or time periods (e.g. "summarize what we did", "what happened in tickets X to Y", "recap the last sprint").
|
|
4
|
+
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Write
|
|
5
|
+
model: sonnet
|
|
6
|
+
---
|
|
7
|
+
|
|
8
|
+
You are a summarizer agent. Your role is to produce executive summaries that communicate completed work to stakeholders who are not in the codebase day-to-day.
|
|
9
|
+
|
|
10
|
+
## Responsibilities
|
|
11
|
+
|
|
12
|
+
1. **Gather evidence** -- Read completed tickets, ADRs, specs, and git log to understand what was delivered
|
|
13
|
+
2. **Identify business value** -- Translate technical changes into outcomes stakeholders care about
|
|
14
|
+
3. **Summarize scope** -- Clearly state what was built, what was explicitly excluded, and what comes next
|
|
15
|
+
4. **Highlight risks and decisions** -- Surface key architectural decisions and any open risks
|
|
16
|
+
5. **Keep it brief** -- Stakeholders skim; every sentence must earn its place
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
## Constraints
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
- You **read and summarize** -- you do not write code or modify project files except for writing summaries to `summaries/`
|
|
21
|
+
- You write for a non-technical audience first, with a technical appendix if needed
|
|
22
|
+
- You never fabricate metrics -- only report what the tests and git history actually show
|
|
23
|
+
- You attribute decisions to their ADRs so stakeholders can drill in if they want
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
## Process
|
|
26
|
+
|
|
27
|
+
1. Identify the scope: which feature or sprint to summarize (from the user's prompt)
|
|
28
|
+
2. Read the relevant tickets in `tickets/` and the backlog `tickets/_backlog.md`
|
|
29
|
+
3. Read the related spec(s) in `specs/` and ADR(s) in `architecture/decisions/`
|
|
30
|
+
4. Run `git log` to understand the commit timeline and contributors
|
|
31
|
+
5. Check test results if available (run `pytest` read-only with `--tb=no -q` or read recent output)
|
|
32
|
+
6. Produce the summary in the output format below
|
|
33
|
+
7. Write the summary to `summaries/<feature-or-sprint-name>.md` (create the `summaries/` directory if it doesn't exist). Use a slugified name, e.g. `summaries/persistent-game-state.md` or `summaries/sprint-2026-05-07.md`
|
|
34
|
+
|
|
35
|
+
## Output Format
|
|
36
|
+
|
|
37
|
+
```markdown
|
|
38
|
+
# Executive Summary: [Feature / Sprint Name]
|
|
39
|
+
|
|
40
|
+
**Period:** [date range]
|
|
41
|
+
**Status:** [Completed / In Progress / Blocked]
|
|
42
|
+
|
|
43
|
+
## What We Delivered
|
|
44
|
+
|
|
45
|
+
[2-4 bullet points in plain language. Lead with the user-facing outcome, not the technical mechanism.]
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
## Why It Matters
|
|
48
|
+
|
|
49
|
+
[1-2 sentences connecting the work to a business goal, user need, or risk reduction.]
|
|
50
|
+
|
|
51
|
+
## Key Decisions
|
|
52
|
+
|
|
53
|
+
| Decision | Rationale | Reference |
|
|
54
|
+
|----------|-----------|-----------|
|
|
55
|
+
| [e.g., Chose SQLite over Postgres] | [one-line reason] | [ADR-0003] |
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
57
|
+
## By the Numbers
|
|
58
|
+
|
|
59
|
+
| Metric | Value |
|
|
60
|
+
|--------|-------|
|
|
61
|
+
| Tickets completed | N |
|
|
62
|
+
| Tests added | N |
|
|
63
|
+
| Test suite status | All passing (N tests) |
|
|
64
|
+
|
|
65
|
+
## What's Next
|
|
66
|
+
|
|
67
|
+
[1-3 bullet points on upcoming work or open questions.]
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
## Appendix: Technical Details
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
<details>
|
|
72
|
+
<summary>Expand for implementation details</summary>
|
|
73
|
+
|
|
74
|
+
[Commit list, architecture changes, migration notes -- anything a technical stakeholder might want.]
|
|
75
|
+
|
|
76
|
+
</details>
|
|
77
|
+
```
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
## Tone Guidelines
|
|
80
|
+
|
|
81
|
+
- **Confident, not hedging** -- "We delivered X" not "X was implemented"
|
|
82
|
+
- **Concrete, not vague** -- "Game state survives server restarts" not "Improved persistence capabilities"
|
|
83
|
+
- **Honest about scope** -- State what's out of scope rather than implying completeness
|
|
84
|
+
- **No jargon without context** -- If you must use a technical term, define it in parentheses on first use
|
package/src/templates/CLAUDE.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,66 +1,65 @@
|
|
|
1
1
|
# Project
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
|
-
This project uses a
|
|
3
|
+
This project uses a hybrid agentic workflow: specialized agents handle process (decisions, planning, review), and Claude Code's plan mode handles execution.
|
|
4
4
|
|
|
5
|
-
## Workflow
|
|
5
|
+
## Workflow — Hybrid Approach
|
|
6
6
|
|
|
7
|
-
|
|
7
|
+
Agents own the **process** — architecture decisions, work decomposition, quality gates, and maintenance. Claude Code plan mode owns the **execution** — implementing individual tickets efficiently within a single session.
|
|
8
8
|
|
|
9
|
-
|
|
|
10
|
-
|
|
11
|
-
| **
|
|
12
|
-
| **
|
|
13
|
-
| **
|
|
14
|
-
| **
|
|
15
|
-
| **
|
|
16
|
-
| **
|
|
17
|
-
| **
|
|
9
|
+
| Phase | How | When |
|
|
10
|
+
|-------|-----|------|
|
|
11
|
+
| **Decide** | `/architect` agent | New feature, significant design choice, unclear requirements |
|
|
12
|
+
| **Map** | `/system-architect` agent | New system or major structural change |
|
|
13
|
+
| **Decompose** | `/planner` agent | ADR/spec ready, work needs to be broken into tickets |
|
|
14
|
+
| **Execute** | Claude Code **plan mode** (`shift+tab`) | Implementing a specific ticket |
|
|
15
|
+
| **Test** | `/qa-tester` agent | Feature implementation complete |
|
|
16
|
+
| **Review** | `/reviewer` agent | Code and tests ready for validation |
|
|
17
|
+
| **Maintain** | `/custodian` agent | After a batch of work, or CLAUDE.md > 200 lines |
|
|
18
|
+
| **Report** | `/summarizer` agent | Sprint or feature complete, stakeholder update needed |
|
|
18
19
|
|
|
19
|
-
|
|
20
|
+
### Why hybrid?
|
|
20
21
|
|
|
21
|
-
|
|
22
|
+
- Agents enforce **separation of concerns** — the Architect can't write code, the Reviewer can't fix issues
|
|
23
|
+
- Plan mode provides **speed and context continuity** — it explores, plans, and executes in one session
|
|
24
|
+
- Artifacts (ADRs, tickets, reviews) **persist across sessions** — plan mode's output is code, agents' output is documentation
|
|
22
25
|
|
|
23
|
-
###
|
|
26
|
+
### Choosing the right tool
|
|
24
27
|
|
|
25
|
-
|
|
26
|
-
- **Test in parallel** — e.g., one sub-agent runs unit tests while another checks integration tests
|
|
27
|
-
- **Implement independent tickets** — tickets with no dependencies on each other can be executed simultaneously
|
|
28
|
-
- **Verify in parallel** — e.g., one sub-agent checks browser behavior while another reviews console output
|
|
28
|
+
**Use an agent** when the task produces a persistent artifact (ADR, ticket, review, summary) or when role separation matters (the person deciding shouldn't be the person implementing).
|
|
29
29
|
|
|
30
|
-
|
|
30
|
+
**Use plan mode** when you have a well-scoped ticket with clear acceptance criteria and want to go from plan to working code in one session.
|
|
31
31
|
|
|
32
|
-
|
|
32
|
+
**Quick fixes and bug fixes** don't need the full pipeline — use plan mode directly, or just implement without ceremony. The workflow exists to help, not to slow down trivial changes.
|
|
33
33
|
|
|
34
|
-
|
|
35
|
-
|------------|-------|----------|
|
|
36
|
-
| **Low** | Haiku | File lookups, grep searches, reading docs, running tests, formatting, simple code generation |
|
|
37
|
-
| **Medium** | Sonnet | Multi-file changes, moderate reasoning, code review, writing tests |
|
|
38
|
-
| **High** | Opus | Architecture decisions, complex refactors, subtle bug investigation, cross-cutting changes |
|
|
34
|
+
## Before Starting Any Feature
|
|
39
35
|
|
|
40
|
-
|
|
36
|
+
1. Check if an ADR exists in `architecture/decisions/` — if not, run `/architect` first
|
|
37
|
+
2. Check if tickets exist in `tickets/` — if not, run `/planner` first
|
|
38
|
+
3. For each ticket: use plan mode (`shift+tab`) to implement it
|
|
39
|
+
4. After implementation: run `/reviewer` to validate against acceptance criteria
|
|
40
|
+
5. If the ticket touches an existing ADR's scope, verify the decision still holds
|
|
41
41
|
|
|
42
|
-
|
|
42
|
+
## Before Starting Any Ticket (in plan mode)
|
|
43
43
|
|
|
44
|
-
|
|
45
|
-
|
|
46
|
-
|
|
47
|
-
|
|
48
|
-
|
|
44
|
+
1. Read the ticket fully, including all linked documents
|
|
45
|
+
2. Read any referenced ADRs in `architecture/decisions/`
|
|
46
|
+
3. Check relevant conventions in `conventions/`
|
|
47
|
+
4. Let plan mode explore and propose the implementation plan
|
|
48
|
+
5. Verify the work end-to-end before marking done
|
|
49
49
|
|
|
50
|
-
|
|
50
|
+
## Sub-Agent Deployment
|
|
51
51
|
|
|
52
|
-
|
|
53
|
-
- **Parallelize independent work** — Launch multiple sub-agents in a single message when their tasks don't depend on each other.
|
|
54
|
-
- **Don't delegate synthesis** — Sub-agents gather information; the main thread makes decisions. Never write "based on your findings, decide X."
|
|
55
|
-
- **Verify sub-agent output** — Sub-agents report what they intended, not necessarily what they achieved. Check their actual changes before reporting to the user.
|
|
52
|
+
When work can be parallelized, spin up sub-agents for independent tasks concurrently.
|
|
56
53
|
|
|
57
|
-
|
|
54
|
+
### Model selection
|
|
58
55
|
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
60
|
-
|
|
61
|
-
|
|
62
|
-
|
|
63
|
-
|
|
56
|
+
| Complexity | Model | Use when |
|
|
57
|
+
|------------|-------|----------|
|
|
58
|
+
| **Low** | Haiku | File lookups, grep, reading docs, running tests, formatting |
|
|
59
|
+
| **Medium** | Sonnet | Multi-file changes, code review, writing tests |
|
|
60
|
+
| **High** | Opus | Architecture decisions, complex refactors, subtle bugs |
|
|
61
|
+
|
|
62
|
+
**Default to Haiku** unless the task requires multi-step reasoning or cross-file understanding.
|
|
64
63
|
|
|
65
64
|
## Key Files and Directories
|
|
66
65
|
|
|
@@ -70,11 +69,11 @@ Use the Agent tool with these parameters:
|
|
|
70
69
|
- `specs/` — Feature specifications
|
|
71
70
|
- `tickets/` — Work items organized by feature folder, with `_backlog.md` as the sprint board
|
|
72
71
|
- `conventions/` — Language and framework coding standards
|
|
73
|
-
- `.claude/agents/` — Subagent definitions for each role
|
|
72
|
+
- `.claude/agents/` — Subagent definitions for each role
|
|
74
73
|
|
|
75
74
|
## MCP Servers
|
|
76
75
|
|
|
77
|
-
- **Context7** — Pulls up-to-date, version-specific documentation from live code libraries
|
|
76
|
+
- **Context7** — Pulls up-to-date, version-specific documentation from live code libraries. Use `resolve` then `get-library-docs` before writing code that depends on a third-party library.
|
|
78
77
|
|
|
79
78
|
## Conventions
|
|
80
79
|
|
|
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
|
|
|
2
2
|
|
|
3
3
|
**Status:** Accepted
|
|
4
4
|
**Date:** 2026-05-04
|
|
5
|
+
**Updated:** 2026-05-08
|
|
5
6
|
**Author:** swarpi
|
|
6
7
|
|
|
7
8
|
## Context
|
|
@@ -12,19 +13,40 @@ Working with AI coding assistants can be highly productive, but without structur
|
|
|
12
13
|
- Lost context between sessions
|
|
13
14
|
- No clear separation between planning and execution
|
|
14
15
|
|
|
15
|
-
We need a workflow that maximizes the benefits of AI assistance while maintaining engineering rigor.
|
|
16
|
+
We need a workflow that maximizes the benefits of AI assistance while maintaining engineering rigor. However, a fully agent-driven pipeline adds friction for execution — Claude Code's built-in plan mode is faster and maintains better context continuity when implementing well-scoped work.
|
|
16
17
|
|
|
17
18
|
## Decision
|
|
18
19
|
|
|
19
|
-
We adopt a
|
|
20
|
+
We adopt a **hybrid approach**: specialized agents own the process, Claude Code plan mode owns execution.
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
### Agents (process)
|
|
20
23
|
|
|
21
24
|
1. **Architect** — Focuses on design decisions. Produces ADRs. Asks clarifying questions before deciding. Has read access to the codebase but does not write code.
|
|
22
25
|
|
|
23
|
-
2. **Planner** — Takes specs and ADRs as input. Decomposes work into tickets
|
|
26
|
+
2. **Planner** — Takes specs and ADRs as input. Decomposes work into tickets scoped for plan mode sessions. Does not implement.
|
|
27
|
+
|
|
28
|
+
3. **QA Tester** — Writes automated tests after implementation. Covers acceptance criteria, edge cases, and regressions.
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
4. **Reviewer** — Reviews diffs against acceptance criteria and linked ADRs. Checks for convention violations. Does not fix issues directly — flags them for fixing.
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
5. **Custodian** — Keeps CLAUDE.md lean and current. Routes large content to external files.
|
|
33
|
+
|
|
34
|
+
6. **Summarizer** — Produces non-technical executive summaries of completed work.
|
|
35
|
+
|
|
36
|
+
### Plan mode (execution)
|
|
37
|
+
|
|
38
|
+
Each ticket from the Planner is executed using Claude Code's plan mode (`shift+tab`). Plan mode:
|
|
39
|
+
- Explores the codebase and proposes a plan before implementing
|
|
40
|
+
- Executes within a single session with full context continuity
|
|
41
|
+
- Adapts its depth to the task — simple ticket, simple plan
|
|
24
42
|
|
|
25
|
-
|
|
43
|
+
The **Executor agent** remains as a fallback for cases where plan mode is unavailable or strict verification discipline is needed.
|
|
26
44
|
|
|
27
|
-
|
|
45
|
+
### When to skip the pipeline
|
|
46
|
+
|
|
47
|
+
- Bug fixes, typos, and small changes → plan mode directly
|
|
48
|
+
- Well-understood changes with no architectural implications → plan mode directly
|
|
49
|
+
- New features or significant decisions → full pipeline starting with Architect
|
|
28
50
|
|
|
29
51
|
All significant decisions are recorded as ADRs. All work items are tickets with acceptance criteria. Conventions are documented per-language.
|
|
30
52
|
|
|
@@ -35,14 +57,15 @@ All significant decisions are recorded as ADRs. All work items are tickets with
|
|
|
35
57
|
- Clear separation of concerns reduces cognitive overload per session
|
|
36
58
|
- ADRs create a searchable decision history
|
|
37
59
|
- Tickets with acceptance criteria make "done" unambiguous
|
|
60
|
+
- Plan mode provides fast, context-aware execution without agent switching overhead
|
|
38
61
|
- Conventions prevent style drift across sessions
|
|
39
|
-
-
|
|
62
|
+
- The workflow adapts to task size — no ceremony for small changes
|
|
40
63
|
|
|
41
64
|
### Negative
|
|
42
65
|
|
|
43
|
-
- More upfront documentation work
|
|
44
|
-
-
|
|
45
|
-
-
|
|
66
|
+
- More upfront documentation work for new features
|
|
67
|
+
- Requires discipline to follow the process for larger changes
|
|
68
|
+
- Plan mode doesn't produce persistent artifacts the way the Executor agent does
|
|
46
69
|
|
|
47
70
|
### Neutral
|
|
48
71
|
|
|
@@ -54,10 +77,14 @@ All significant decisions are recorded as ADRs. All work items are tickets with
|
|
|
54
77
|
|
|
55
78
|
Just talk to the AI and let it write code directly. Rejected because it leads to inconsistent decisions and lost context.
|
|
56
79
|
|
|
57
|
-
###
|
|
80
|
+
### Fully agent-driven pipeline (previous approach)
|
|
58
81
|
|
|
59
|
-
|
|
82
|
+
All eight agents in sequence, including Executor for implementation. Rejected because plan mode provides better context continuity and speed for execution, and the Executor agent was frequently skipped by plan mode anyway.
|
|
83
|
+
|
|
84
|
+
### Plan mode only (no agents)
|
|
60
85
|
|
|
61
|
-
|
|
86
|
+
Use plan mode for everything. Rejected because plan mode doesn't enforce role separation (the same session that decides also implements), produces no persistent artifacts (ADRs, tickets, reviews), and doesn't scale to multi-session features.
|
|
62
87
|
|
|
63
|
-
|
|
88
|
+
### Heavy-process frameworks (e.g., full Agile ceremony)
|
|
89
|
+
|
|
90
|
+
Too heavyweight for a solo developer. We take the useful parts (clear acceptance criteria, documented decisions) without the ceremony.
|
|
@@ -8,13 +8,25 @@ This document provides a high-level view of the system architecture.
|
|
|
8
8
|
2. **Written artifacts** — Decisions, plans, and reviews are documented, not just discussed
|
|
9
9
|
3. **Verify before execute** — Plans are reviewed before implementation begins
|
|
10
10
|
4. **Single source of truth** — Each piece of information lives in one canonical place
|
|
11
|
+
5. **Right tool for the job** — Agents own process; plan mode owns execution
|
|
11
12
|
|
|
12
|
-
## The Flow
|
|
13
|
+
## The Flow (Hybrid)
|
|
13
14
|
|
|
14
15
|
```
|
|
15
|
-
Requirement → Architect → ADR/Spec → Planner → Tickets →
|
|
16
|
+
Requirement → Architect → ADR/Spec → Planner → Tickets → Plan Mode → Code → Reviewer → Merged
|
|
17
|
+
(agent) (agent) (built-in) (agent)
|
|
16
18
|
```
|
|
17
19
|
|
|
20
|
+
**Process phases** (agents): Architect, System Architect, Planner, Reviewer, QA Tester, Custodian, Summarizer
|
|
21
|
+
**Execution phase** (plan mode): Claude Code's built-in plan mode implements each ticket in a focused session
|
|
22
|
+
|
|
23
|
+
## When to Skip the Pipeline
|
|
24
|
+
|
|
25
|
+
Not every change needs the full workflow:
|
|
26
|
+
- **Bug fix or typo** → Plan mode directly, or just implement
|
|
27
|
+
- **Small well-understood change** → Plan mode directly
|
|
28
|
+
- **New feature or significant decision** → Start with Architect, then full pipeline
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
18
30
|
## Artifact Types
|
|
19
31
|
|
|
20
32
|
| Artifact | Purpose | Location |
|
|
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
|
|
|
1
|
-
name: Agentic Workflow
|
|
2
|
-
description:
|
|
1
|
+
name: Hybrid Agentic Workflow
|
|
2
|
+
description: >
|
|
3
|
+
Agents own the process (decisions, planning, review, maintenance).
|
|
4
|
+
Claude Code plan mode owns execution (implementing tickets).
|
|
3
5
|
|
|
4
6
|
agents:
|
|
5
7
|
- id: architect
|
|
@@ -29,8 +31,8 @@ agents:
|
|
|
29
31
|
- id: planner
|
|
30
32
|
kind: planning
|
|
31
33
|
title: Planner
|
|
32
|
-
tagline: Decomposes specs into
|
|
33
|
-
description: Takes ADRs and specs as input. Decomposes
|
|
34
|
+
tagline: Decomposes specs into plan-mode-sized tickets
|
|
35
|
+
description: Takes ADRs and specs as input. Decomposes work into discrete tickets scoped for a single Claude Code plan mode session.
|
|
34
36
|
outputs:
|
|
35
37
|
- Tickets
|
|
36
38
|
- Milestones
|
|
@@ -38,23 +40,39 @@ agents:
|
|
|
38
40
|
color: indigo
|
|
39
41
|
docLink: /.claude/agents/planner.md
|
|
40
42
|
|
|
43
|
+
- id: plan-mode
|
|
44
|
+
kind: execution
|
|
45
|
+
title: Plan Mode
|
|
46
|
+
tagline: Claude Code's built-in plan-then-execute cycle
|
|
47
|
+
description: >
|
|
48
|
+
Not a custom agent — this is Claude Code's native plan mode (shift+tab).
|
|
49
|
+
It explores the codebase, proposes a plan, gets approval, then implements.
|
|
50
|
+
Each ticket from the Planner is executed as a separate plan mode session.
|
|
51
|
+
outputs:
|
|
52
|
+
- Code
|
|
53
|
+
- PRs
|
|
54
|
+
color: indigo
|
|
55
|
+
builtin: true
|
|
56
|
+
|
|
41
57
|
- id: executor
|
|
42
58
|
kind: execution
|
|
43
|
-
title: Executor
|
|
44
|
-
tagline:
|
|
45
|
-
description:
|
|
59
|
+
title: Executor (fallback)
|
|
60
|
+
tagline: Guided execution with strict verification
|
|
61
|
+
description: >
|
|
62
|
+
Fallback for when plan mode is unavailable or when enforced verification
|
|
63
|
+
discipline is needed. Most tickets should use plan mode instead.
|
|
46
64
|
outputs:
|
|
47
65
|
- Code
|
|
48
66
|
- PRs
|
|
49
67
|
- Plan docs
|
|
50
|
-
color:
|
|
68
|
+
color: gray
|
|
51
69
|
docLink: /.claude/agents/executor.md
|
|
52
70
|
|
|
53
71
|
- id: qa-tester
|
|
54
72
|
kind: validation
|
|
55
73
|
title: QA Tester
|
|
56
74
|
tagline: Writes automated tests for completed features
|
|
57
|
-
description: Writes automated tests after
|
|
75
|
+
description: Writes automated tests after implementation. Covers acceptance criteria, edge cases, and regression scenarios.
|
|
58
76
|
outputs:
|
|
59
77
|
- Tests
|
|
60
78
|
- Coverage report
|
|
@@ -66,7 +84,7 @@ agents:
|
|
|
66
84
|
kind: validation
|
|
67
85
|
title: Reviewer
|
|
68
86
|
tagline: Validates against acceptance criteria
|
|
69
|
-
description: Validates code and tests against the original acceptance criteria. Flags issues back
|
|
87
|
+
description: Validates code and tests against the original acceptance criteria. Flags issues back for fixing and provides final approval.
|
|
70
88
|
outputs:
|
|
71
89
|
- Feedback
|
|
72
90
|
- Approval
|
|
@@ -78,14 +96,27 @@ agents:
|
|
|
78
96
|
kind: maintenance
|
|
79
97
|
title: Custodian
|
|
80
98
|
tagline: Keeps CLAUDE.md lean, current, and well-routed
|
|
81
|
-
description: Maintains the project's CLAUDE.md file — adds new patterns and gotchas, removes stale entries, and routes large content to external files. Enforces a 150–200 line limit
|
|
99
|
+
description: Maintains the project's CLAUDE.md file — adds new patterns and gotchas, removes stale entries, and routes large content to external files. Enforces a 150–200 line limit.
|
|
82
100
|
outputs:
|
|
83
101
|
- Updated CLAUDE.md
|
|
84
102
|
- Extracted reference files
|
|
85
103
|
color: blue
|
|
86
104
|
docLink: /.claude/agents/custodian.md
|
|
87
105
|
|
|
106
|
+
- id: summarizer
|
|
107
|
+
kind: reporting
|
|
108
|
+
title: Summarizer
|
|
109
|
+
tagline: Communicates completed work to stakeholders
|
|
110
|
+
description: Reads tickets, ADRs, specs, git history, and test results to produce concise, non-technical executive summaries.
|
|
111
|
+
outputs:
|
|
112
|
+
- Executive summaries
|
|
113
|
+
- Sprint recaps
|
|
114
|
+
- Stakeholder reports
|
|
115
|
+
color: teal
|
|
116
|
+
docLink: /.claude/agents/summarizer.md
|
|
117
|
+
|
|
88
118
|
connections:
|
|
119
|
+
# Process phase: agents produce artifacts
|
|
89
120
|
- from: architect
|
|
90
121
|
to: system-architect
|
|
91
122
|
artifact: ADRs · Specs
|
|
@@ -94,32 +125,61 @@ connections:
|
|
|
94
125
|
to: planner
|
|
95
126
|
artifact: architecture.yaml
|
|
96
127
|
|
|
128
|
+
# Execution phase: plan mode implements tickets
|
|
129
|
+
- from: planner
|
|
130
|
+
to: plan-mode
|
|
131
|
+
artifact: Tickets
|
|
132
|
+
note: Each ticket becomes a separate plan mode session
|
|
133
|
+
|
|
134
|
+
# Fallback execution path
|
|
97
135
|
- from: planner
|
|
98
136
|
to: executor
|
|
99
137
|
artifact: Tickets
|
|
138
|
+
type: fallback
|
|
139
|
+
note: Use when plan mode is unavailable
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
# Validation phase
|
|
142
|
+
- from: plan-mode
|
|
143
|
+
to: qa-tester
|
|
144
|
+
artifact: Code
|
|
100
145
|
|
|
101
146
|
- from: executor
|
|
102
147
|
to: qa-tester
|
|
103
148
|
artifact: Code
|
|
149
|
+
type: fallback
|
|
104
150
|
|
|
105
151
|
- from: qa-tester
|
|
106
152
|
to: reviewer
|
|
107
153
|
artifact: Code · Tests
|
|
108
154
|
|
|
155
|
+
# Feedback loops
|
|
156
|
+
- from: reviewer
|
|
157
|
+
to: plan-mode
|
|
158
|
+
artifact: Feedback
|
|
159
|
+
type: feedback
|
|
160
|
+
note: Fix issues in a new plan mode session
|
|
161
|
+
|
|
109
162
|
- from: reviewer
|
|
110
163
|
to: executor
|
|
111
164
|
artifact: Feedback
|
|
112
165
|
type: feedback
|
|
113
166
|
|
|
167
|
+
# Maintenance triggers
|
|
114
168
|
- from: reviewer
|
|
115
169
|
to: custodian
|
|
116
170
|
artifact: Completed work context
|
|
117
171
|
type: trigger
|
|
118
172
|
|
|
173
|
+
- from: reviewer
|
|
174
|
+
to: summarizer
|
|
175
|
+
artifact: Completed work context
|
|
176
|
+
type: trigger
|
|
177
|
+
|
|
119
178
|
parallelization:
|
|
120
179
|
description: >
|
|
121
180
|
The main session can deploy sub-agents for independent, parallelizable work.
|
|
122
181
|
Sub-agents run in isolation, report back, and the main thread synthesizes results.
|
|
182
|
+
Plan mode sessions run sequentially (one ticket at a time) unless tickets are independent.
|
|
123
183
|
model-routing:
|
|
124
184
|
low-complexity: haiku
|
|
125
185
|
medium-complexity: sonnet
|
|
@@ -128,7 +188,7 @@ parallelization:
|
|
|
128
188
|
examples:
|
|
129
189
|
- parallel research across multiple files
|
|
130
190
|
- running independent test suites simultaneously
|
|
131
|
-
-
|
|
191
|
+
- independent tickets can be executed in separate plan mode sessions
|
|
132
192
|
- concurrent verification (browser + console + tests)
|
|
133
193
|
|
|
134
194
|
layout: diamond
|