The “inline comments on a plan” is one of the best features of Antigravity, and I’m surprised others haven’t started copycatting.
How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
221–230 of 630 posts
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#222Hub and spoke documentation in planning has been absolutely essential for the way my planning was before, and it's pretty cool seeing it work so well for planning mode to build scaffolds and routing.
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#223Haha this is surprisingly and exactly how I use claude as well. Quite fascinating that we independently discovered the same workflow. I maintain two directories: "docs/proposals" (for the research md files) and "docs/plans" (for the planning md files). For complex research files, I typically break them down into multiple planning md files so claude can implement one at a time. A small difference in my workflow is tha…
Same, I formalized a similar workflow for my team (oriented around feature requirement docs), I am thinking about fully productizing it and am looking to for feedback - https://acai.sh Even if the product doesn’t resonate I think I’ve stumbled on some ideas you might find useful^ I do think spec-driven development is where this all goes. Still making up my mind though.
This is basically long-lived specs that are used as tests to check that the product still adheres to the original idea that you wanted to implement, right?
This inspired me to finally write good old playwright tests for my website :).
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#224> the workflow I’ve settled into is radically different from what most people do with AI coding tools This looks exactly like what anthropic recommends as the best practice for using Claude Code. Textbook. It also exposes a major downside of this approach: if you don't plan perfectly, you'll have to start over from scratch if anything goes wrong. I've found a much better approach in doing a design -> plan -> execute…
Dunno. My 80k+ LOC personal life planner, with a native android app, eink display view still one shots most features/bugs I encounter. I just open a new instance let it know what I want and 5min later it's done.
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sufficiently advanced technology has become like magic: you have to prompt the electronic genie with the right words or it will twist your wishes.
Light some incense, and you too can be a dystopian space tech support, today! Praise Omnissiah!
are we the orks?
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#226> the workflow I’ve settled into is radically different from what most people do with AI coding tools This looks exactly like what anthropic recommends as the best practice for using Claude Code. Textbook. It also exposes a major downside of this approach: if you don't plan perfectly, you'll have to start over from scratch if anything goes wrong. I've found a much better approach in doing a design -> plan -> execute…
Dunno. My 80k+ LOC personal life planner, with a native android app, eink display view still one shots most features/bugs I encounter. I just open a new instance let it know what I want and 5min later it's done.
Both can be true. I have personally experienced both.
Some problems AI surprised me immensely with fast, elegant efficient solutions and problem solving. I've also experienced AI doing totally absurd things that ended up taking multiple times longer than if I did it manually. Sometimes in the same project.
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#227It’s worrying to me that nobody really knows how LLMs work. We create prompts with or without certain words and hope it works. That’s my perspective anyway
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#228This is what I do with the obra/superpowers[0] set of skills. 1. Use brainstorming to come up with the plan using the Socratic method 2. Write a high level design plan to file 3. I review the design plan 4. Write an implementation plan to file. We've already discussed this in detail, so usually it just needs skimming. 5. Use the worktree skill with subagent driven development skill 6. Agent does the work using subage…
The crowd around this pot shows how superficial is knowledge about claude code. It gets releases each day and most of this is already built in the vanilla version. Not to mention subagent working in work trees, memory.md, plan on which you can comment directly from the interface, subagents launched in research phase, but also some basic mcp's like LSP/IDE integration, and context7 to not to be stuck in the knowledge…
I'm using the in-built features as well, but I like the flow that I have with superpowers. You've made a lot of assumptions with your comment that are just not true (at least for me).
I find that brainstorming + (executing plans OR subagent driven development) is way more reliable than the built-in tooling.
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is parenting making us better at prompt engineering, or is it the other way around?
Better yet, I have Codex, Gemini, and Claude as my kids, running around in my code playground. How do I be a good parent and not play favorites?
We all know Gemini is your artsy, Claude is your smartypants, and Codex is your nerd.
Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
#230> Notice the language: “deeply”, “in great details”, “intricacies”, “go through everything”. This isn’t fluff. Without these words, Claude will skim. It’ll read a file, see what a function does at the signature level, and move on. You need to signal that surface-level reading is not acceptable. This makes no sense to my intuition of how an LLM works. It's not that I don't believe this works, but my mental model doesn…
How anybody can read stuff like this and still take all this seriously is beyond me. This is becoming the engineering equivalent of astrology.
Anthropic recommends doing magic invocations: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/19/claude-code-best-pract...
It's easy to know why they work. The magic invocation increases test-time compute (easy to verify yourself - try!). And an increase in test-time compute is demonstrated to increase answer correctness (see any benchmark).
It might surprise you to know that the only different between GPT 5.2-low and GPT 5.2-xhigh is one of these magic invocations. But that's not supposed to be public knowledge.