alt Hacker NewsHow I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution
Comments
I think the real value here isn’t “planning vs not planning,” it’s forcing the model to surface its assumptions before they harden into code.
LLMs don’t usually fail at syntax. They fail at invisible assumptions about architecture, constraints, invariants, etc. A written plan becomes a debugging surface for those assumptions.
> 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't capture why asking the model to read the content "more deeply" will have any impact on whatever output the LLM generates.
Cool, the idea of leaving comments directly in the plan never even occurred to me, even though it really is the obvious thing to do.
Do you markup and then save your comments in any way, and have you tried keeping them so you can review the rules and requirements later?
I go a bit further than this and have had great success with 3 doc types and 2 skills:
- Specs: these are generally static, but updatable as the project evolves. And they're broken out to an index file that gives a project overview, a high-level arch file, and files for all the main modules. Roughly ~1k lines of spec for 10k lines of code, and try to limit any particular spec file to 300 lines. I'm intimately familiar with every single line in these.
- Plans: these are the output of a planning session with an LLM. They point to the associated specs. These tend to be 100-300 lines and 3 to 5 phases.
- Working memory files: I use both a status.md (3-5 items per phase roughly 30 lines overall), which points to a latest plan, and a project_status (100-200 lines), which tracks the current state of the project and is instructed to compact past efforts to keep it lean)
- A planner skill I use w/ Gemini Pro to generate new plans. It essentially explains the specs/plans dichotomy, the role of the status files, and to review everything in the pertinent areas of code and give me a handful of high-level next set of features to address based on shortfalls in the specs or things noted in the project_status file. Based on what it presents, I select a feature or improvement to generate. Then it proceeds to generate a plan, updates a clean status.md that points to the plan, and adjusts project_status based on the state of the prior completed plan.
- An implementer skill in Codex that goes to town on a plan file. It's fairly simple, it just looks at status.md, which points to the plan, and of course the plan points to the relevant specs so it loads up context pretty efficiently.
I've tried the two main spec generation libraries, which were way overblown, and then I gave superpowers a shot... which was fine, but still too much. The above is all homegrown, and I've had much better success because it keeps the context lean and focused.
And I'm only on the $20 plans for Codex/Gemini vs. spending $100/month on CC for half year prior and move quicker w/ no stall outs due to token consumption, which was regularly happening w/ CC by the 5th day. Codex rarely dips below 70% available context when it puts up a PR after an execution run. Roughly 4/5 PRs are without issue, which is flipped against what I experienced with CC and only using planning mode.
I actually don't really like a few of things about this approach.
First, the "big bang" write it all at once. You are going to end up with thousands of lines of code that were monolithically produced. I think it is much better to have it write the plan and formulate it as sensible technical steps that can be completed one at a time. Then you can work through them. I get that this is not very "vibe"ish but that is kind of the point. I want the AI to help me get to the same point I would be at with produced code AND understanding of it, just accelerate that process. I'm not really interested in just generating thousands of lines of code that nobody understands.
Second, the author keeps refering to adjusting the behaviour, but never incorporating that into long lived guidance. To me, integral with the planning process is building an overarching knowledge base. Every time you're telling it there's something wrong, you need to tell it to update the knowledge base about why so it doesn't do it again.
Finally, no mention of tests? Just quick checks? To me, you have to end up with comprehensive tests. Maybe to the author it goes without saying, but I find it is integral to build this into the planning. Certain stages you will want certain types of tests. Some times in advance of the code (so TDD style) other times built alongside it or after.
It's definitely going to be interesting to see how software methodology evolves to incorporate AI support and where it ultimately lands.
I don’t use plan.md docs either, but I recognise the underlying idea: you need a way to keep agent output constrained by reality.
My workflow is more like scaffold -> thin vertical slices -> machine-checkable semantics -> repeat.
Concrete example: I built and shipped a live ticketing system for my club (Kolibri Tickets). It’s not a toy: real payments (Stripe), email delivery, ticket verification at the door, frontend + backend, migrations, idempotency edges, etc. It’s running and taking money.
The reason this works with AI isn’t that the model “codes fast”. It’s that the workflow moves the bottleneck from “typing” to “verification”, and then engineers the verification loop:
-keep the spine runnable early (end-to-end scaffold)
-add one thin slice at a time (don’t let it touch 15 files speculatively)
-force checkable artifacts (tests/fixtures/types/state-machine semantics where it matters)
-treat refactors as normal, because the harness makes them safe
Plan docs are one way to create shared state and prevent drift. A runnable scaffold + verification harness is another.
> 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 in batches, where the plan is no more than 1,500 lines, used as a proxy for complexity.
My 30,000 LOC app has about 100,000 lines of plan behind it. Can't build something that big as a one-shot.
I use Claude Code for lecture prep.
I craft a detailed and ordered set of lecture notes in a Quarto file and then have a dedicated claude code skill for translating those notes into Slidev slides, in the style that I like.
Once that's done, much like the author, I go through the slides and make commented annotations like "this should be broken into two slides" or "this should be a side-by-side" or "use your generate clipart skill to throw an image here alongside these bullets" and "pull in the code example from ../examples/foo." It works brilliantly.
And then I do one final pass of tweaking after that's done.
But yeah, annotations are super powerful. Token distance in-context and all that jazz.
the annotation cycle in plan.md is the part that actually makes this work imo. it's not just that you're planning, it's that you can inject domain constraints that the model can't infer from the codebase alone -- stuff like "don't use X pattern here because of Y deployment constraint" or "this service has a 500ms timeout that isn't in any config file". that knowledge transfer happens naturally in code review when a human writes the code, but LLMs skip it by default.
Well, that's already done by Amazon's Kiro [0], Google's Antigravity [1], GitHub's Spec Kit [2], and OpenSpec [3]!
[0]: https://kiro.dev/
[1]: https://antigravity.google/
The idea of having the model create a plan/spec, which you then mark up with comments before execution, is a cornerstone of how the new generation of AI IDEs like Google Antigravity operate.
Claude Code also has "Planning Mode" which will do this, but in my experience its "plan" sometimes includes the full source code of several files, which kind of defeats the purpose.
This is quite close to what I've arrived at, but with two modifications
1) anything larger I work on in layers of docs. Architecture and requirements -> design -> implementation plan -> code. Partly it helps me think and nail the larger things first, and partly helps claude. Iterate on each level until I'm satisfied.
2) when doing reviews of each doc I sometimes restart the session and clear context, it often finds new issues and things to clear up before starting the next phase.
> Read deeply, write a plan, annotate the plan until it’s right, then let Claude execute the whole thing without stopping, checking types along the way.
As others have already noted, this workflow is exactly what the Google Antigravity agent (based off Visual Studio Code) has been created for. Antigravity even includes specialized UI for a user to annotate selected portions of an LLM-generated plan before iterating it.
One significant downside to Antigravity I have found so far is the fact that even though it will properly infer a certain technical requirement and clearly note it in the plan it generates (for example, "this business reporting column needs to use a weighted average"), it will sometimes quietly downgrade such a specialized requirement (for example, to a non-weighted average), without even creating an appropriate "WARNING:" comment in the generated code. Especially so when the relevant codebase already includes a similar, but not exactly appropriate API. My repetitive prompts to ALWAYS ask about ANY implementation ambiguities WHATSOEVER go unanswered.
From what I gather Claude Code seems to be better than other agents at always remembering to query the user about implementation ambiguities, so maybe I will give Claude Code a shot over Antigravity.
The multi-pass approach works outside of code too. I run a fairly complex automation pipeline (prompt -> script -> images -> audio -> video assembly) and the single biggest quality improvement was splitting generation into discrete planning and execution phases. One-shotting a 10-step pipeline means errors compound. Having the LLM first produce a structured plan, then executing each step against that plan with validation gates between them, cut my failure rate from maybe 40% to under 10%. The planning doc also becomes a reusable artifact you can iterate on without re-running everything.
This is very similar to the RECR (requirements, execute, check, repeat) framework I use and teach to my clients.
One critical step that I didn't see mentioned is testing. I drive my agents with TDD and it seems to make a huge difference.
My workflow is a bit different.
* I ask the LLM for it's understanding of a topic or an existing feature in code. It's not really planning, it's more like understanding the model first
* Then based on its understanding, I can decide how great or small to scope something for the LLM
* An LLM showing good understand can deal with a big task fairly well.
* An LLM showing bad understanding still needs to be prompted to get it right
* What helps a lot is reference implementations. Either I have existing code that serves as the reference or I ask for a reference and I review.
A few folks do it at my work do it OPs way, but my arguments for not doing it this way
* Nobody is measuring the amount of slop within the plan. We only judge the implementation at the end
* it's still non deterministic - folks will have different experiences using OPs methods. If claude updates its model, it outdates OPs suggestions by either making it better or worse. We don't evaluate when things get better, we only focus on things not gone well.
* it's very token heavy - LLM providers insist that you use many tokens to get the task done. It's in their best interest to get you to do this. For me, LLMs should be powerful enough to understand context with minimal tokens because of the investment into model training.
Both ways gets the task done and it just comes down to my preference for now.
For me, I treat the LLM as model training + post processing + input tokens = output tokens. I don't think this is the best way to do non deterministic based software development. For me, we're still trying to shoehorn "old" deterministic programming into a non deterministic LLM.
How about following the test-driven approach properly? Asking Claude Code to write tests first and implement the solution after? Research -> Test Plan -> Write Tests -> Implementation Plan -> Write Implementation
Holy moly, I just applied the principles to DND campaign creation and I am in awe.
Quoting the article:
> One trick I use constantly: for well-contained features where I’ve seen a good implementation in an open source repo, I’ll share that code as a reference alongside the plan request. If I want to add sortable IDs, I paste the ID generation code from a project that does it well and say “this is how they do sortable IDs, write a plan.md explaining how we can adopt a similar approach.” Claude works dramatically better when it has a concrete reference implementation to work from rather than designing from scratch.
Licensing apparently means nothing.
Ripped off in the training data, ripped off in the prompt.
“The workflow I’m going to describe has one core principle: never let Claude write code until you’ve reviewed and approved a written plan.”
I’m not sure we need to be this black and white about things. Speaking from the perspective of leading a dev team, I regularly have Claude Code take a chance at code without reviewing a plan. For example, small issues that I’ve written clear details about, Claude can go to town on those. I’ve never been on a team that didn’t have too many of these types of issues to address.
And, a team should have othee guards in place that validates that code before it gets merged somewhere important.
I don’t have to review every single decision one of my teammates is going to make, even those less experienced teammates, but I do prepare teammates with the proper tools (specs, documentation, etc) so they can make a best effort first attempt. This is how I treat Claude Code in a lot of scenarios.
What I've read is that even with all the meticulous planning, the author still needed to intervene. Not at the end but at the middle, unless it will continue building out something wrong and its even harder to fix once it's done. It'll cost even more tokens. It's a net negative.
You might say a junior might do the same thing, but I'm not worried about it, at least the junior learned something while doing that. They could do it better next time. They know the code and change it from the middle where it broke. It's a net positive.
> After Claude writes the plan, I open it in my editor and add inline notes directly into the document. These notes correct assumptions, reject approaches, add constraints, or provide domain knowledge that Claude doesn’t have.
This is the part that seems most novel compared to what I've heard suggested before. And I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical. Would it not be better to modify what Claude has written directly, to make it correct, rather than adding the corrections as separate notes (and expecting future Claude to parse out which parts were past Claude and which parts were the operator, and handle the feedback graciously)?
At least, it seems like the intent is to do all of this in the same session, such that Claude has the context of the entire back-and-forth updating the plan. But that seems a bit unpleasant; I would think the file is there specifically to preserve context between sessions.
Since everyone is showing their flow, here's mine:
* create a feature-name.md file in a gitignored folder
* start the file by giving the business context
* describe a high-level implementation and user flows
* describe database structure changes (I find it important not to leave it for interpretation)
* ask Claude to inspect the feature and review if for coherence, while answering its questions I ask to augment feature-name.md file with the answers
* enter Claude's plan mode and provide that feature-name.md file
* at this point it's detailed enough that rarely any corrections from me are needed
This 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 subagents that for each task:
a. Implements the task
b. Spec reviews the completed task
c. Code reviews the completed task
8. Go back to the agent with any comments
9. If finished, delete the plan files and merge the PR
Has anyone found a efficient way to avoid repeating the initial codebase assessment when working with large projects?
There are several projects on GitHub that attempt to tackle context and memory limitations, but I haven’t found one that consistently works well in practice.
My current workaround is to maintain a set of Markdown files, each covering a specific subsystem or area of the application. Depending on the task, I provide only the relevant documents to Claude Code to limit the context scope. It works reasonably well, but it still feels like a manual and fragile solution. I’m interested in more robust strategies for persistent project context or structured codebase understanding.
This is the way.
The practice is:
- simple
- effective
- retains control and quality
Certainly the “unsupervised agent” workflows are getting a lot of attention right now, but they require a specific set of circumstances to be effective:
- clear validation loop (eg. Compile the kernel, here is gcc that does so correctly)
- ai enabled tooling (mcp / cli tool that will lint, test and provide feedback immediately)
- oversight to prevent sgents going off the rails (open area of research)
- an unlimited token budget
That means that most people can't use unsupervised agents.
Not that they dont work; Most people have simply not got an environment and task that is appropriate.
By comparison, anyone with cursor or claude can immediately start using this approach, or their own variant on it.
It does not require fancy tooling.
It does not require an arcane agent framework.
It works generally well across models.
This is one of those few genunie pieces of good practical advice for people getting into AI coding.
Simple. Obviously works once you start using it. No external dependencies. BYO tools to help with it, no “buy my AI startup xxx to help”. No “star my github so I can a job at $AI corp too”.
Great stuff.
I’ve begun using Gpt’y to iron out most of the planning phase to essentially bootstrap the conversation with Claude. I’m curious if others have done that.
Sometimes I find it quite difficult to form the right question. Using Gpt’y I can explore my question and often times end up asking a completely different question.
It also helps derisk hitting my usage limits with pro. I feel like I’m having richer conversations now w/ Claude but I also feel more confident in my prompts.
I do something very similar, also with Claude and Codex, because the workflow is controlled by me, not by the tool. But instead of plan.md I use a ticket system basically like ticket_<number>_<slug>.md where I let the agent create the ticket from a chat, correct and annotate it afterwards and send it back, sometimes to a new agent instance. This workflow helps me keeping track of what has been done over time in the projects I work on. Also this approach does not need any „real“ ticket system tooling/mcp/skill/whatever since it works purely on text files.
I've been teaching AI coding tool workshops for the past year and this planning-first approach is by far the most reliable pattern I've seen across skill levels.
The key insight that most people miss: this isn't a new workflow invented for AI - it's how good senior engineers already work. You read the code deeply, write a design doc, get buy-in, then implement. The AI just makes the implementation phase dramatically faster.
What I've found interesting is that the people who struggle most with AI coding tools are often junior devs who never developed the habit of planning before coding. They jump straight to "build me X" and get frustrated when the output is a mess. Meanwhile, engineers with 10+ years of experience who are used to writing design docs and reviewing code pick it up almost instantly - because the hard part was always the planning, not the typing.
One addition I'd make to this workflow: version your research.md and plan.md files in git alongside your code. They become incredibly valuable documentation for future maintainers (including future-you) trying to understand why certain architectural decisions were made.
Regarding inline notes, I use a specific format in the `/plan` command, by using th `ME:` prefix.
https://github.com/srid/AI/blob/master/commands/plan.md#2-pl...
It works very similar to Antigravity's plan document comment-refine cycle.
I'm going to offer a counterpoint suggestion. You need to watch Claude try to implement small features many times without planning to see where it is likely to fail. It will often do the same mistakes over and over (e.g. trying to SSH without opening a bastion, mangling special characters in bash shell, trying to communicate with a server that self-shuts down after 10 minutes). Once you have a sense for all the repeated failure points of your workflow, then you can add them to future plan files.
Shameless plug: https://beadhub.ai allows you to do exactly that, but with several agents in parallel. One of them is in the role of planner, which takes care of the source-of-truth document and the long term view. They all stay in sync with real-time chat and mail.
It's OSS.
Real-time work is happening at https://app.beadhub.ai/juanre/beadhub (beadhub is a public project at https://beadhub.ai so it is visible).
Particularly interesting (I think) is how the agents chat with each other, which you can see at https://app.beadhub.ai/juanre/beadhub/chat
There are frameworks like https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD and https://github.github.com/spec-kit/ that are working on encoding a similar kind of approach and process.
I try these staging-document patterns, but suspect they have 2 fundamental flaws that stem mostly from our own biases.
First, Claude evolves. The original post work pattern evolved over 9 months, before claude's recent step changes. It's likely claude's present plan mode is better than this workaround, but if you stick to the workaround, you'd never know.
Second, the staging docs that represent some context - whether a library skills or current session design and implementation plans - are not the model Claude works with. At best they are shaping it, but I've found it does ignore and forget even what's written (even when I shout with emphasis), and the overall session influences the code. (Most often this happens when a peripheral adjustment ends up populating half the context.)
Indeed the biggest benefit from the OP might be to squeeze within 1 session, omitting peripheral features and investigations at the plan stage. So the mechanism of action might be the combination of getting our own plan clear and avoiding confusing excursions. (A test for that would be to redo the session with the final plan and implementation, to see if the iteration process itself is shaping the model.)
Our bias is to believe that we're getting better at managing this thing, and that we can control and direct it. It's uncomfortable to realize you can only really influence it - much like giving direction to a junior, but they can still go off track. And even if you found a pattern that works, it might work for reasons you're not understanding -- and thus fail you eventually. So, yes, try some patterns, but always hang on to the newbie senses of wonder and terror that make you curious, alert, and experimental.
This is the flow I've found myself working towards. Essentially maintaining more and more layered documentation for the LLM produces better and more consistent results. What is great here is the emphasis on the use of such documents in the planning phase. I'm feeling much more motivated to write solid documentation recently, because I know someone (the LLM) is actually going to read it! I've noticed my efforts and skill acquisition have moved sharply from app developer towards DevOps and architecture / management, but I think I'll always be grateful for the application engineering experience that I think the next wave of devs might miss out on.
I've also noted such a huge gulf between some developers describing 'prompting things into existence' and the approach described in this article. Both types seem to report success, though my experience is that the latter seems more realistic, and much more likely to produce robust code that's likely to be maintainable for long term or project critical goals.
Planning is important because you get the LLM to explain the problem and solution in its language and structure, not yours.
This shortcuts a range of problem cases where the LLM fights between the users strict and potentially conflicting requirements, and its own learning.
In the early days we used to get LLM to write the prompts for us to get round this problem, now we have planning built in.
The annotation cycle is the key insight for me. Treating the plan as a living doc you iterate on before touching any code makes a huge difference in output quality.
Experimentally, i've been using mfbt.ai [https://mfbt.ai] for roughly the same thing in a team context. it lets you collaboratively nail down the spec with AI before handing off to a coding agent via MCP.
Avoids the "everyone has a slightly different plan.md on their machine" problem. Still early days but it's been a nice fit for this kind of workflow.
I’ve been using this same pattern, except not the research phase. Definetly will try to add it to my process aswell.
Sometimes when doing big task I ask claude to implement each phase seprately and review the code after each step.
I find a spend most of my time defining interfaces and putting comments down now (“// this function does x”). Then I tell it “implement function foo, as described in the doc comment”. It’s pretty good at filling in a skeleton you’ve laid out
I've been working off and on on a vibe coded FP language and transpiler - mostly just to get more experience with Claude Code and see how it handles complex real world projects. I've settled on a very similar flow, though I use three documents: plan, context, task list. Multiple rounds of iteration when planning a feature. After completion, have a clean session do an audit to confirm that everything was implemented per the design. Then I have both Claude and CodeRabbit do code review passes before I finally do manual review. VERY heavy emphasis on tests, the project currently has 2x more test code than application code. So far it works surprisingly well. Example planning docs below -
https://github.com/mbcrawfo/vibefun/tree/main/.claude/archiv...
Sounds similar to Kiro's specs.
I tried Opus 4.6 recently and it’s really good. I had ditched Claude a long time ago for Grok + Gemini + OpenCode with Chinese models. I used Grok/Gemini for planning and core files, and OpenCode for setup, running, deploying, and editing.
However, Opus made me rethink my entire workflow. Now, I do it like this:
* PRD (Product Requirements Document)
* main.py + requirements.txt + readme.md (I ask for minimal, functional, modular code that fits the main.py)
* Ask for a step-by-step ordered plan
* Ask to focus on one step at a time
The super powerful thing is that I don’t get stuck on missing accounts, keys, etc. Everything is ordered and runs smoothly. I go rapidly from idea to working product, and it’s incredibly easy to iterate if I figure out new features are required while testing. I also have GLM via OpenCode, but I mainly use it for "dumb" tasks.
Interestingly, for reasoning capabilities regarding standard logic inside the code, I found Gemini 3 Flash to be very good and relatively cheap. I don't use Claude Code for the actual coding because forcing everything via chat into a main.py encourages minimal code that's easy to skim—it gives me a clearer representation of the feature space
Radically different? Sounds to me like the standard spec driven approach that plenty of people use.
I prefer iterative approach. LLMs give you incredible speed to try different approaches and inform your decisions. I don’t think you can ever have a perfect spec upfront, at least that’s my experience.
The author is quite far on their journey but would benefit from writing simple scripts to enforce invariants in their codebase. Invariant broken? Script exits with a non-zero exit code and some output that tells the agent how to address the problem. Scripts are deterministic, run in milliseconds, and use zero tokens. Put them in husky or pre-commit, install the git hooks, and your agent won’t be able to commit without all your scripts succeeding.
And “Don’t change this function signature” should be enforced not by anticipating that your coding agent “might change this function signature so we better warn it not to” but rather via an end to end test that fails if the function signature is changed (because the other code that needs it not to change now has an error). That takes the author out of the loop and they can not watch for the change in order to issue said correction, and instead sip coffee while the agent observes that it caused a test failure then corrects it without intervention, probably by rolling back the function signature change and changing something else.
Here's my workflow, hopefully concise enough as a reply, in case helpful to those very few who'll actually see it:
Research -> Define 'Domains' -> BDD -> Domain Specs -> Overall Arch Specs / complete/consistent/gap analysis -> Spec Revision -> TDD Dev.
Smaller projects this is overkill. Larger projects, imho, gain considerable value from BDD and Overall Architecture Spec complete/consistent/gap analysis...
Cheers
Lol I wrote about this and been using plan+execute workflow for 8 months.
Sadly my post didn't much attention at the time.
https://thegroundtruth.media/p/my-claude-code-workflow-and-p...
I have to give this a try. My current model for backend is the same as how author does frontend iteration. My friend does the research-plan-edit-implement loop, and there is no real difference between the quality of what I do and what he does. But I do like this just for how it serves as documentation of the thought process across AI/human, and can be added to version control. Instead of humans reviewing PRs, perhaps humans can review the research/plan document.
On the PR review front, I give Claude the ticket number and the branch (or PR) and ask it to review for correctness, bugs and design consistency. The prompt is always roughly the same for every PR. It does a very good job there too.
Modelwise, Opus 4.6 is scary good!
> “remove this section entirely, we don’t need caching here” — rejecting a proposed approach
I wonder why you don't remove it yourself. Aren't you already editing the plan?
> Most developers type a prompt, sometimes use plan mode, fix the errors, repeat.
> ...
> never let Claude write code until you’ve reviewed and approved a written plan
I certainly always work towards an approved plan before I let it lost on changing the code. I just assumed most people did, honestly. Admittedly, sometimes there's "phases" to the implementation (because some parts can be figured out later and it's more important to get the key parts up and running first), but each phase gets a full, reviewed plan before I tell it to go.
In fact, I just finished writing a command and instruction to tell claude that, when it presents a plan for implementation, offer me another option; to write out the current (important parts of the) context and the full plan to individual (ticket specific) md files. That way, if something goes wrong with the implementation I can tell it to read those files and "start from where they left off" in the planning.
LLMs hallucinations on macro isn't about planning and not planning like sparin9 pointed out. It's like, an architectural problem which would be fun to fix using overseeing system?