I don't really get what is different about this from how almost everyone else uses Claude Code? This is an incredibly common, if not the most common way of using it (and many other tools).

Funny how I came up with something loosely similar. Asking Codex to write a detailed plan in a markdown document, reviewing it, and asking it to implement it step by step. It works exquisitely well when it can build and test itself.

The post and comments all read like: Here are my rituals to the software God. If you follow them then God gives plenty. Omit one step and the God mad. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice but that's better for the long term.

I've been in eng for decades but never participated in forums. Is the cargo cult new?

I use Claude Code a lot. Still don't trust what's in the plan will get actually written, regardless of details. My ritual is around stronger guardrails outside of prompting. This is the new MongoDB webscale meme.

this is exactly how I work with cursor

except that I put notes to plan document in a single message like:

   > plan quote
   my note
   > plan quote
   my note

otherwise, I'm not sure how to guarantee that ai won't confuse my notes with its own plan.

one new thing for me is to review the todo list, I was always relying on auto generated todo list

Hub 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.

I had to stop reading about half way, it's written in that breathless linkedin/ai generated style.

Sounds a bit like what Claude Plan Mode or Amazon's Kiro were built for. I agree it's a useful flow, but you can also overdo it.

It is really fun to watch how a baby makes its first steps and also how experienced professionals rediscover what standards were telling us for 80+ years.

The author discovered plan mode in cursor.