Why I Built a Structured Workflow for Claude Code

A developer built Taskify, an open-source Claude Code plugin that splits large coding requests into explicit planning, specification, task-breakdown, implementation, review, and fix stages rather than handling everything in a single agent session. The plugin tracks progress so work can be resumed, and separates implementation from review to add an explicit checkpoint. The developer says the approach is still an experiment and is exploring when structured agent orchestration beats letting Claude Code handle a task in one session.

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: 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.