How do you Orchestrate your Agentic Development? I moved away from claude gaol based workflows and built something more custom, using ideas from AWS Kiro, SpecFlow and SpecStory. Been using it daily now. Wanted to be vendor agnostic and orchestrate between coding harness. Appreciate any feedback and your thoughts around this.
Comments
jakelevirne•40m ago
This is great to see. I've now fully embraced long-running agentic workflows with separate plan->generate->evaluate steps, all coordinated by an orchestrator. I've done this using Claude Code alone, which is very easy but costly using Fable alone. I've done this in a team-visible way using Linear and Cyrus https://specstory.com/tutorials/team-based-loop-engineering.
And lately, for cost savings I've been doing this via Claude Code orchestrated workflows that fan out to lower cost Pi.dev Kimi agents https://github.com/jakelevirne/pi-relay.
I think there's a lot to be said for having orchestrated goal-oriented workflows (loops/harnesses) that have their choice of agents. So it's nice to see that principle in play here. And strong goal/outcome definition is critical for success with these long running workflows, so helpful to see SpecFlow methodology baked in to the skill.
I think the biggest thing I've seen over and over as teams try to adopt this type of approach is weak testing/verification. Using agentic development it's very easy to have automated unit and integration testing. But what this approach really demands is acceptance testing and intent verification. Most people I know still do this part by hand, which means the loops can't be as long-running as they ideally would be. Have you thought about a deeper (more deterministic) verification approach, in addition to adversarial review from another agent?
(Note: I'm a SpecStory maintainer but didn't have anything to do with this Claramap Builder project)
jakelevirne•40m ago
And lately, for cost savings I've been doing this via Claude Code orchestrated workflows that fan out to lower cost Pi.dev Kimi agents https://github.com/jakelevirne/pi-relay.
I think there's a lot to be said for having orchestrated goal-oriented workflows (loops/harnesses) that have their choice of agents. So it's nice to see that principle in play here. And strong goal/outcome definition is critical for success with these long running workflows, so helpful to see SpecFlow methodology baked in to the skill.
I think the biggest thing I've seen over and over as teams try to adopt this type of approach is weak testing/verification. Using agentic development it's very easy to have automated unit and integration testing. But what this approach really demands is acceptance testing and intent verification. Most people I know still do this part by hand, which means the loops can't be as long-running as they ideally would be. Have you thought about a deeper (more deterministic) verification approach, in addition to adversarial review from another agent?
(Note: I'm a SpecStory maintainer but didn't have anything to do with this Claramap Builder project)
mathaix•34m ago
mathaix•33m ago