I’m somewhat of a code goblin. I love seeing all the cool repos people post here and the weird/wild ideas they have, both good and bad. I started to see so many of them that it got hard to track them all. So, I made my own. I took some of the most basic general ideas that were floating around at the time, my own experience working with Claude, and took the things I liked, what I thought worked, and synthesized it into a series of agents, hooks, and skills to build a toolkit that I thought would help me be more efficient with my sessions and build more interesting things with less time spent spinning my wheels. It didn’t work. Well, it sort of did, but like they say, “it works if you work it” and most of the time I’d forget some of the tools even existed! So I built workflows on top of the rest of the tools, linking things up and enforcing robustness, giving Claude the ability to push (however gently) back in key places. And you know what? That ruled. The planning workflow takes a while, and can feel a little slow, but the end result are documents Claude can follow across sessions, with clearly decomposed units of work that can be flagged for work in parallel by subagents. You can even now engage in sequential debate at key points in the planning phases, or if you have experimental features enabled you can enable agent teams instead. Overall, you can find this in the project : You can invoke the agents directly if you just want a specific thing done, or you can use the /blueprint workflow or /describe-change to see how much planning you may need. I’ve specifically generated the workflow to allow for plan regression and failure, since sometimes what sounds like a good idea at first falls apart under scrutiny. Sometimes a little, and you can save it with some rethinking, sometimes a lot, and it’s time to toss it. This can help you decide where you are. Once planning is done, there are execution agents to help delegate work appropriately, allowing parallel workflows where possible. Here are some of the things this planning methodology addressed that I have personally experienced: “I thought I told Claude what I wanted/I don’t know what I really want” → Triage gateway ( /describe-change ) routes every change to the right planning depth. 1-3 simple steps? Light path. Risk flags or 4+ steps? Full spec required. Can’t skip. “The plan looked good but had a fatal flaw” → Three-round debate chain challenges every spec. A Defender must respond to each finding, then a Judge rules. Pre-mortem (Stage 4.5) separately covers operational failures that design review misses. “I came back to a session and lost all context” → Manifest-based recovery reads a compact JSON summary instead of full markdown artifacts. Session bootstrap hook injects active work state. Checkpoints save decisions, blockers, and next actions. Status line shows active blueprint stage and TDD phase at a glance. “I’m nervous about what Claude might run/I have no concept of safety” → Three-layer defense: deterministic shell hooks (can’t bypass), Claude-readable hookify rules (context-aware), and CLAUDE.md guidance. Seven security rules covering rm -rf , force push, chmod 777 , curl|bash , data exfiltration, and more. All fail-open so hook bugs don’t halt work. “Reviews all say the same shallow things” → Six specialized review agents (spec compliance, quality, security, performance, architecture, CloudFormation) plus a GPT cross-model review where Claude diagnoses and directs, GPT operates, Claude validates. I was also really taken with another project called Empirica , and so I’ve built that into the project here. If you don’t want to use it, your Claude should be able to extract those sections easily. I just think it’s neat! There are several other interesting things stuffed into this project like a dense-content-low-token file storage and retrieval idea, blueprint/plan storage and retrieval, just anything that strikes me as neat. Anyway, take what you like, leave the rest! submitted by /u/flawlesscowboy0
Originally posted by u/flawlesscowboy0 on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.