Author here. I kept hitting the same tradeoff with Claude Code:
1) move fast, ship bugs, slow down feature development due to bad code
2) manually review all code and move super slow
This post covers the workflow I landed on:
1) sub-agents for plan review and code review (each gets fresh context)
2) persistent memory across coding sessions (not just markdown files)
3) a closing session protocol that handles tests/lint/format/cleanup/commit/push/merge conflicts.
The key insight: your main agent juggles too much. Sub-agents specialize. Each starts fresh, does one job well, returns findings.
Example: Code Review Sub-agent = detailed document about my exact code standards. When it spins up, it has a brand new context window and its only job is to ensure the `git diff` matches your code standards.
This post covers the workflow I landed on: 1) sub-agents for plan review and code review (each gets fresh context) 2) persistent memory across coding sessions (not just markdown files) 3) a closing session protocol that handles tests/lint/format/cleanup/commit/push/merge conflicts.
The key insight: your main agent juggles too much. Sub-agents specialize. Each starts fresh, does one job well, returns findings. Example: Code Review Sub-agent = detailed document about my exact code standards. When it spins up, it has a brand new context window and its only job is to ensure the `git diff` matches your code standards.
There's an interactive demo showing how it works.
Happy to answer questions about the setup.