Claude Code Development Workflows

English | 简体中文 | 日本語 | Español | 한국어 | Português (Brasil)

Claude Code can explore a codebase deeply. On non-trivial work, the harder problem is convergence. While designing an account-recovery flow, Claude may find a real inconsistency in token handling and spend most of the design on it, leaving the requested recovery behavior vague.

claude-code-workflows keeps that exploration pointed at an agreed result. It agrees on the outcome and exclusions before design, checks designs against the repository, verifies each task before commit, and, on larger changes, independently reviews the finished implementation to make sure it delivers the agreed result, does not include unnecessary changes, and has no serious functional, reliability, or security problems. Within that scope, Claude chooses the implementation details from the codebase.

Use Claude Code directly when the outcome and safe implementation boundary are already clear. Use these workflows when a change needs scope agreement, durable design decisions, a reliable handoff between contexts, or independent verification.

---

When is the workflow useful?

The workflow adds agent calls and artifacts, so it should earn that cost. Use it when a real side finding could pull a larger change away from its intended result, a design could be internally consistent but miss the requested behavior, or a passing test could fail to observe what it claims to prove.

Once the implementation scope is approved, Claude carries the tasks through focused verification, repository quality checks, commits, and final review without asking for routine implementation decisions. It asks the user only when the agreed product outcome or exclusions must change; Claude handles technical design and implementation choices. Because the process is packaged as a Claude Code plugin, a team can apply the same controls across repositories without prescribing Claude's steps.

---

Quick Start

Requires a Claude Code release with plugin marketplace support.

Choose a path

| What do you need? | Start with | Plugin | |---|---|---| | Deliver a backend, API, CLI, or general change end to end | /recipe-implement | dev-workflows | | Design a backend or general change before implementation | /recipe-design | dev-workflows | | Design and build a React / TypeScript frontend | /recipe-front-design → /recipe-front-plan → /recipe-front-build | dev-workflows-frontend | | Deliver a backend and React frontend change together | /recipe-fullstack-implement | dev-workflows-fullstack | | Review a completed implementation against the agreed outcome | /recipe-review or /recipe-front-review | dev-workflows or dev-workflows-frontend | | Set repository-specific quality rules | /recipe-quality-profile | Any workflow plugin | | Investigate a problem before choosing a fix | /recipe-diagnose | Any workflow plugin | | Document an existing system from its code | /recipe-reverse-engineer | dev-workflows or dev-workflows-fullstack | | A throwaway experiment or prototype | Use Claude Code directly | None |

Common setup

# 1. Start Claude Code
claude

# 2. Add the marketplace
/plugin marketplace add shinpr/claude-code-workflows

Install one workflow plugin

Install the plugin that matches your project. If the install tells you to run /reload-plugins, do that before invoking the recipe.

# Backend or general
/plugin install dev-workflows@claude-code-workflows
/recipe-implement "Add rate limiting to the public API"

# Frontend
/plugin install dev-workflows-frontend@claude-code-workflows
/recipe-front-design "Add account recovery screens"

# Full-stack
/plugin install dev-workflows-fullstack@claude-code-workflows
/recipe-fullstack-implement "Add user authentication with JWT + login form"

Install only one workflow plugin. dev-workflows-fullstack already contains the backend and frontend workflows. If you previously used full-stack recipes from dev-workflows, migrate to dev-workflows-fullstack.

/recipe-front-design stops after the applicable UI Spec and Design Doc are reviewed and approved. Run /recipe-front-plan and /recipe-front-build when you are ready to continue. For a backend or general change, /recipe-design, /recipe-plan, and /recipe-build provide the same staged path.

Team setup

Claude Code supports project-scoped marketplaces and plugins. Commit the resulting .claude/settings.json so contributors are prompted to use the same workflow plugin.

claude plugin marketplace add shinpr/claude-code-workflows --scope project
claude plugin install dev-workflows-fullstack@claude-code-workflows --scope project

Replace dev-workflows-fullstack with the plugin that matches the repository. See the Claude Code plugin documentation for project and managed installation options.

---

How It Works

flowchart LR
    A[Request] --> B[Agree on outcome and exclusions]
    B --> C{One evident implementation path?}
    C -->|Yes| S[Direct task cycle]
    S --> J[Complete]
    C -->|No| D[Inspect, design, and review]
    D --> E[Approve implementation scope]
    E --> F[Per task: implement, verify, quality-check, commit]
    F --> I[Independent implementation and security review]
    I -->|Correction| F
    I -->|Boundary changed| B
    I -->|Passed| J[Complete]

The number of product and design decisions determines the route, not file count or the amount of implementation work:

| Scale | What the change needs | What happens | |-------|-----------------------|--------------| | Small | One outcome that follows an existing pattern within one responsibility | Direct task cycle → focused and repository checks → security review | | Medium | One outcome that crosses responsibilities or needs a lasting design decision | Reviewed Design Doc, plus UI Spec / ADR when required → selected integration/E2E proof → reviewed Work Plan → task cycles → final review | | Large | Multiple independent product outcomes that need separate design decisions | Reviewed PRD and Design Docs, plus UI Spec / ADR when required → selected integration/E2E proof → reviewed Work Plan → task cycles → final review |

UI Specs, ADRs, and integration or E2E test skeletons appear only when their decisions or proof boundaries apply.

Generating an artifact does not advance the workflow on its own. Decision-changing design premises are resolved with observable evidence before approval, using a bounded probe only when it is the smallest sufficient proof.

The Work Plan is reviewed for coverage, dependency order, and executable verification before it authorizes implementation. Each task is committed only after its focused checks and applicable repository checks complete. When staged implementation is finished, separate reviews check the whole change against the agreed outcome, look for unnecessary changes and serious functional or reliability problems, confirm observable coverage, and assess security.

The main session decides which findings belong to the current outcome, resolves implementation questions from the repository, and keeps unaffected work moving. Review suggestions do not become work automatically. No change, removal, and reuse of what already exists are weighed before a fix that keeps or adds a mechanism, and that fix has to name the result the smaller answers cannot deliver. A correction can therefore remove something an earlier Design Doc or ADR selected, and the document is updated with it. An accepted correction returns through implementation and the affected verification gates.

How decisions survive fresh contexts

Fresh contexts keep one phase's reasoning from silently becoming the next phase's authority. In the included Work Plan template each task cites the Design Doc, ADR, or UI Spec sections and acceptance criteria that constrain it, and the plan is finished only when every Design Doc obligation the implementation needs is covered by at least one task. It does not turn every document section or review suggestion into a task. An obligation left uncovered is a planning mistake, so the plan gains or adjusts a task instead of returning the question to the user.

- [ ] **P1-T1: Preserve the error response shape in the new handler**
  - **Source**: docs/design/example.md — API contract; AC-03
  - **Scope**: request handling for the affected endpoint
  - **Depends on**: none
  - **Executor lane**: backend
  - **Rollback boundary**: the handler change reverts with this task
  - **Verification**: existing contract test for the error path

The Task template carries binding decisions and observable contract values into implementation, each with a yes-or-no compliance check. After execution, the applicable repository checks run against the complete task change before commit. The final reviewers read the same approved sources and the completed code instead of relying on the implementation conversation. /recipe-quality-profile can record repository-specific quality rules and their sources in docs/project-context/quality.yaml; implementation executors and final reviewers use a confirmed profile alongside the approved sources.

A real workflow run

The incremental sync feature in mcp-local-rag was a 42-file change across filesystem scanning, storage, and both the CLI and MCP surfaces. An independent security review sent the implementation back twice. It caught file reads happening before validation and a path-containment escape through a symlinked parent.

The run began with an existing Work Plan that referred to an ADR and Design Doc that were not present, leaving the approved source for its technical decisions unclear. The user chose to treat the Work Plan as the source of truth, and the recipe divided it into 13 planned tasks. The final implementation included the changes needed to verify the approved behavior, while the PR records why watch mode and persistent jobs were left out.

What to inspect after the first run

After the first run, inspect the artifacts:

• Did the agreed approach extend what already exists and give evidence for each addition?
• Can you follow each requirement into a task and an observable verification method?
• Did every completed task pass its focused and repository quality checks before commit?
• Did final review confirm that the whole change delivers the agreed outcome without unnecessary changes or serious functional, reliability, or security problems?
• When a reviewer proposed more work, did the report show why it was applied or declined?

---

Typical Workflows

End-to-end backend or general development

/recipe-implement "Add rate limiting to the public API"

The recipe scopes the change, inspects the current implementation, creates only the documents required by its decisions, pauses when a decision is needed, and carries the plan through implementation and final review.

Design first, implement later

# Backend or general
/recipe-design "Design rate limiting for the public API"
/recipe-plan
/recipe-build

# React frontend
/recipe-front-design "Build a user pro