Two Execution Options
-
Subagent-Driven (this session) - I dispatch fresh subagent per task, review between tasks, fast iteration
-
Parallel Session (separate) - Open new session with executing-plans, batch execution with checkpoints
Which approach, Mark?
Mark wants more detail on the two execution options. Let me explain them clearly based on what the writing-plans skill says and my understanding of the superpowers skills.
Option 1: Subagent-Driven (this session)
- Uses superpowers:subagent-driven-development
- I stay in this session with Mark
- For each task, I dispatch a fresh subagent to do the work
- After each task completes, I review the code
- Mark sees progress in real-time
- Can course-correct between tasks
- More interactive
Option 2: Parallel Session (separate)
- Uses superpowers:executing-plans
- Mark opens a NEW Claude session in the same directory/worktree
- That session loads the plan and executes tasks in batches
- Executes multiple tasks, then pauses for review
- Less interactive, more autonomous
- Mark can do other things while it runs
Let me give Mark a detailed breakdown of both with pros/cons.
Option 1: Subagent-Driven Development (This Session)
How it works:
- I stay in this current session with you
- For each task (e.g., "Task 2: Metadata Types"), I spawn a fresh subagent
- The subagent executes that one task following the plan exactly
- When task completes, I review the code against the plan
- We discuss any issues, then move to next task
- Repeat for all 13 tasks
Flow example: You: "Let's start" Me: "Dispatching subagent for Task 1: Project Dependencies" [subagent runs go get, commits] Me: "Task 1 complete ✓ - reviewed code, looks good" Me: "Dispatching subagent for Task 2: Metadata Types" [subagent writes test, fails it, implements, passes, commits] Me: "Task 2 complete ✓ - reviewed code, found one issue..." You: "Let's fix that before continuing" Me: "Fixed. Moving to Task 3..."
Pros:
- ✅ Interactive - You see progress task-by-task
- ✅ Quality gates - Code review between each task
- ✅ Course correction - Can adjust approach if something doesn't work
- ✅ Stay engaged - You're involved throughout
- ✅ Fast iteration - Issues caught and fixed immediately
Cons:
- ❌ Requires your attention - Can't walk away
- ❌ Slower overall - Review overhead between tasks
- ❌ More back-and-forth - More messages in this session
Best for:
- When you want to stay involved
- When you want to learn the codebase as it's built
- When you might need to make decisions during implementation
Option 2: Parallel Session (Separate Claude Session)
How it works:
- You open a new Claude session (different browser tab/window)
- In that new session, you tell Claude: "Execute docs/plans/2025-12-10-phase-1-mvp.md"
- That Claude loads the plan and executes tasks in batches (e.g., Tasks 1-3, then pause)
- After each batch, it reports progress and waits for your approval to continue
- You review the batch of changes, then say "continue"
- Meanwhile, this session stays open for questions/discussion
Flow example: [New Session - Execution] You: "Execute docs/plans/2025-12-10-phase-1-mvp.md" Claude: "Loaded plan with 13 tasks. Executing Batch 1 (Tasks 1-4)..." [Executes Tasks 1-4 following plan exactly] Claude: "Batch 1 complete (4 tasks, 8 commits). Review? Type 'continue' or 'pause'" You: [Reviews git log, runs tests] You: "continue" Claude: "Executing Batch 2 (Tasks 5-8)..." ...
[This Session - Available for Questions] You: "Hey, question about the API client design..." Me: "Sure! Here's how it works..."
Pros:
- ✅ Autonomous - Runs in background while you do other things
- ✅ Faster overall - No review overhead between individual tasks
- ✅ Batch review - Review multiple tasks at once (more efficient)
- ✅ Parallel work - You can ask me questions here while execution happens there
- ✅ Clear checkpoints - Pause points are well-defined (after batches)
Cons:
- ❌ Less interactive - Don't see each task as it happens
- ❌ Batch rollback - If something's wrong, might need to undo multiple commits
- ❌ Context switching - Managing two Claude sessions
- ❌ Less flexibility - Harder to course-correct mid-batch
Best for:
- When you trust the plan and want efficient execution
- When you have other work to do during implementation
- When you prefer to review in larger chunks
Hybrid Option (Best of Both Worlds?)
You could also:
- Start with Subagent-Driven for Tasks 1-3 (setup + core types)
- Once confident the approach works, switch to Parallel Session for Tasks 4-13
- This gives you early validation + later efficiency
My Recommendation
Given that:
- This is a new project (not modifying existing code)
- The plan is comprehensive and well-tested mentally
- You wrote detailed Go code in the plan already
- Tasks are small and independent (2-5 minutes each)
I'd recommend Option 2 (Parallel Session) because:
- Plan is solid, low risk of needing major course corrections
- Faster overall execution
- You can do other things while it runs
- Natural checkpoint after every 3-4 tasks
But if you want to stay engaged and see the code being built step-by-step, Option 1 is great for learning and validation.