I feel like I get a lot of what this article presents as "hidden" by using this process:

- "Read `description` and create a specification, implementation guide, and checklist." - "Ask clarifying questions. If any of those questions has a clear best recommendation, please select that yourself and record that in "autorecommendations.md". - "Have codex and antigravity review each of these and work to consensus."

These are the core of ~61 lines of prompting I do across 3 prompts, and I feel like the resulting artifacts describe some of the thinking. Also, some of the back-and-forth between the models feels like it gives some insight into the model "thinking".

I will say: I heavily used Fable when it was available; Opus + loops + codex and/or antigravity review is better than Fable at building things.