Why I Built a Structured Workflow for Claude Code

I've been using Claude Code for development tasks, and while it works really well for individual coding tasks, I started noticing a problem when working on larger features.

A larger request usually involves several different things:

Understanding the existing codebase
Figuring out the requirements
Creating an implementation plan
Breaking the work into smaller tasks
Writing the code
Reviewing the implementation
Fixing issues discovered during review

When all of this happens in a single agent session, it can become difficult to keep the work structured and predictable.

That led me to experiment with a different approach.

The workflow I wanted

Instead of:

Request
↓
Claude
↓
Code
↓
Done

I wanted something closer to:

Request
↓
Plan
↓
Specs
↓
Tasks
↓
Implementation
↓
Review
↓
Fixes
↓
Done

The idea is simple: separate planning, implementation, and review instead of treating the entire development task as one operation.

Introducing Taskify

To experiment with this workflow, I built Taskify, a Claude Code plugin.

Taskify organizes a larger development request into smaller stages and executable tasks.

The workflow starts by analyzing the request and creating an implementation plan. That plan is then converted into smaller tasks that can be implemented incrementally.

After implementation, the changes go through a separate review stage. If issues are found, they can be addressed before moving on.

It also keeps track of progress so that work can be resumed instead of starting the entire process again.

Why separate the review?

One thing I wanted to experiment with was separating implementation from review.

An agent that just implemented a feature may have a different perspective when reviewing the result later.

So instead of assuming:

Implement → Done

the workflow becomes:

Implement
↓
Review
↓
Issues?
├── No → Done
│
└── Yes
↓
Fix
↓
Review again

This doesn't guarantee that the implementation is correct, but it gives the development process another explicit checkpoint.

What Taskify currently does

The plugin currently focuses on:

Creating implementation plans
Generating specifications
Breaking work into executable tasks
Implementing tasks incrementally
Reviewing completed work
Fixing issues found during review
Tracking progress and resuming work

The main goal isn't to add more AI to the development process.

It's to make the development process around AI coding agents more structured.

When I think this approach is useful

I don't think every coding task needs this workflow.

For something like:

"Add a button to this component."

A full planning and review process would probably be unnecessary.

But for something like:

"Add role-based permissions across the application, update the API, modify the database schema, update the frontend, and add tests."

Having explicit planning, task breakdown, implementation, and review stages can make the work easier to manage.

What I'm still figuring out

Taskify is still an experiment, and I'm interested in finding out where this approach actually provides value.

There is obviously a trade-off.

More structure can mean:

More context
More agent calls
More processing time
More overhead for smaller tasks

So the question I'm trying to answer is:

At what point does structured agent orchestration become more useful than simply letting Claude Code handle the entire task in one session?

That's something I want to explore through real projects and feedback from other developers.

Try it

Taskify is open source and available on GitHub:

GitHub Link

If you're using Claude Code for larger projects, I'd be interested in hearing how you currently structure your workflow.

Do you prefer a single agent session, or do you already separate planning, implementation, and review into different stages?

Disclosure: I used AI assistance while editing this article for wording and structure, but the project, workflow, and technical experience described here are my own.