Transform AI-assisted development from "smart autocomplete" into systematic engineering. This workflow produces AI-generated code that actually works in production.
A battle-tested multi-agent workflow system that orchestrates specialized AI agents to build production-grade software. Instead of relying on a single AI assistant that does everything poorly, this workflow deploys the right AI model for each specific taskβlike having a senior development team where each member excels at their specialty.
Built for: Development teams who need AI-generated code that actually works in production, not just demos.
- This README: Overview, benefits, and competitive comparison
- process.md: See the workflow in action with real examples and multi-agent coordination
- backlog.md: Public roadmap with MVP plans and future development phases
- Production Applications: Where reliability matters more than prototype speed
- Complex Systems: Multi-component architectures with intricate dependencies
- Security-Critical Projects: Handling user data or requiring compliance
- Long-term Codebases: Projects that must remain maintainable over months/years
- Team Development: Multiple contributors (human or AI) working on the same codebase
- Quick prototypes or throwaway code
- Single-file scripts or simple utilities
- Projects with no quality requirements
- Solo experiments or learning exercises
| Challenge | Vanilla Cursor/Cline | Single Claude/Gemini | Our Multi-Agent System |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Quality | Inconsistent patterns, no oversight | Good but no systematic validation | Mandatory quality gates with specialized reviewers |
| Security | Ad-hoc security considerations | Generalist security knowledge | Dedicated security specialist (Qwen Code) for all critical paths |
| Complex Systems | User must orchestrate everything | Single agent gets overwhelmed | System Architect coordinates, specialists execute |
| Documentation | Becomes stale quickly | Generic documentation | Code-first strategy with automated validation |
| Production Reliability | No systematic testing approach | May use mocks/shortcuts | Real API testing mandateβno mocking allowed |
| Architectural Consistency | Relies entirely on user vigilance | No institutional memory | Formal architectural patterns with enforcement |
This system transforms AI development using four core principles:
Each AI model handles what it does best:
- System Architect (Claude): Strategic planning and coordination
- Security Reviewer (Qwen Code): Security analysis and architecture validation
- Context Specialist (Gemini CLI): Deep codebase analysis and pattern discovery
- Feature Developer (Claude): Implementation and testing
- Documentation Writer (Claude): Knowledge transfer and maintenance
Long-Term Memory: Stable architectural principles in documentation
Short-Term Memory: Live codebase accessed through structured analysis
Result: AI agents reason like senior engineers, validating every change against established principles
- Real API Testing: No mocking allowedβensures production readiness
- Security-First: Mandatory reviews for all critical changes
- Architectural Patterns: Enforced consistency across the entire codebase
- Code-First Documentation: Documentation that evolves with implementation
Explicit handoff protocols, dependency management, and quality gates ensure nothing falls through the cracks.
Think of it like a senior development team where each member has a specialized role:
sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant SystemArchitect
participant FeatureDeveloper
participant SecurityReviewer
participant DocsWriter
User->>SystemArchitect: "New Feature Request"
SystemArchitect-->>User: "Strategic Plan Created"
User->>FeatureDeveloper: "Implement According to Plan"
FeatureDeveloper->>FeatureDeveloper: "Write Code & Tests"
FeatureDeveloper->>SecurityReviewer: "Quality & Security Review"
activate SecurityReviewer
alt Review Passes
SecurityReviewer-->>FeatureDeveloper: "Approved"
else Critical Issues Found
SecurityReviewer-->>FeatureDeveloper: "Fix Required"
FeatureDeveloper->>FeatureDeveloper: "Address Issues"
FeatureDeveloper->>SecurityReviewer: "Re-submit for Review"
SecurityReviewer-->>FeatureDeveloper: "Final Approval"
end
deactivate SecurityReviewer
FeatureDeveloper->>DocsWriter: "Update Documentation"
DocsWriter-->>User: "Feature Complete"
| Specialist | Primary Responsibility | When They're Critical |
|---|---|---|
| System Architect | Strategic planning, task coordination | Complex features, architectural decisions |
| Security Reviewer | Code quality, security validation | All production code, critical systems |
| Context Specialist | Codebase analysis, pattern discovery | Large refactors, complex integrations |
| Feature Developer | Implementation, testing | All development work |
| Documentation Writer | Knowledge transfer, maintenance | Feature completion, architectural changes |
Want to see how this multi-agent coordination works on real tasks? Check out process.md for detailed examples including:
- Complete workflow walkthrough: How we created our public roadmap using systematic multi-agent coordination
- Multi-agent orchestration: Claude + Gemini CLI + Qwen Code working together on complex security implementation
- Two-tier memory in practice: Real examples of long-term + short-term memory synthesis
- Quality gates demonstration: Actual validation checkpoints and decision flows
Unlike traditional AI coding where quality is hit-or-miss, our workflow enforces systematic quality through:
flowchart TD
A[Code Complete] --> B{Security Critical?}
B -->|Yes| C[π Security Review Required]
B -->|No| D[π Standard Testing]
C --> E[π§ͺ Real API Testing]
D --> E
E --> F{All Gates Pass?}
F -->|No| G[π Return for Fixes]
F -->|Yes| H[β
Production Ready]
G --> A
- Real API Testing: No mockingβif it doesn't work with real APIs, it doesn't ship
- Security-First: Every critical path reviewed by specialized security agent
- Code-First Documentation: Documentation automatically validated against actual implementation
- Semantic Landmarks: Documentation that can't become outdated because it's tied to searchable code patterns
β Context Overload: One agent trying to handle planning, implementation, security, and documentation
β No Quality Control: No systematic validation of AI-generated code
β Architectural Drift: Each session starts fresh with no institutional memory
β Security Blind Spots: Generalist agents miss security implications
β Documentation Rot: Documentation becomes stale and misleading
β
Specialized Expertise: Right AI model for each specific task
β
Built-in Quality Gates: Systematic validation at every step
β
Institutional Memory: Formal architectural principles preserved across sessions
β
Security-First: Dedicated security specialist reviews all critical paths
β
Living Documentation: Code-first approach ensures documentation stays current
This workflow is perfect for teams who:
- β Build production applications (not just prototypes)
- β Need consistent code quality across AI-generated code
- β Work on complex systems with multiple components
- β Require security compliance or handle sensitive data
- β Want AI assistance that enhances rather than replaces engineering discipline
See our complete Public Roadmap for detailed implementation strategy:
- π― MVP: 5-minute manual setup with full workflow demonstration
- β‘ Phase 2: Automated CLI tools and validation scripts
- π Phase 3: Community plugins and enterprise migration tools
Next Up: Template repository with agent personas, quality gate examples, and step-by-step tutorials.