User Workflow: Using Claude.ai for Planning and Claude Code for Implementation
Workflow Details
A developer on r/ClaudeAI describes a specific workflow using two separate Claude tools: Claude.ai for planning and Claude Code for implementation. The user deliberately splits work between the tools because Claude Code is "eager to solve problems" and sometimes takes "the quickest path rather than the best one," potentially introducing subtle bugs by racing to complete tasks.
In contrast, conversations with Claude.ai are described as "more thorough." The user shows Claude.ai summaries of what Claude Code has done, and Claude.ai catches issues that Claude Code misses or gets wrong, including mistakes, overcomplicated approaches, or deviations from specifications.
Phased Implementation Process
The workflow follows this pattern:
- Discuss the feature or problem in Claude.ai until understanding implications and agreeing on an approach.
- Claude.ai writes a detailed implementation plan that breaks work into separate phases, each with a specific prompt for Claude Code.
- Take the first phase prompt to Claude Code for implementation.
- Test the result and provide summary to Claude.ai for review.
- If issues are found, return to Claude.ai to determine why and how to fix.
- Only move to the next phase once the current one works correctly.
- Repeat until complete.
The user states this phased approach is "the only way I have found to keep quality high as a non-technical solo founder," noting that dumping the entire plan into Claude Code at once leads to corner-cutting or losing track of requirements.
Current Limitations
The main problem identified is that "these two tools have zero shared state." This requires the user to act as "the human clipboard," copying plans from Claude.ai and pasting them into Claude Code. When Claude Code changes files, Claude.ai has no awareness unless files are manually re-uploaded to the project knowledge folder.
The user wants a shared project workspace where both Claude.ai and Claude Code can read and write the same files, with planning on one side and implementation on the other, both having the latest context. They suggest even shared markdown files would suffice.
The user asks about potential solutions using Notion, Obsidian, or Google Drive as shared memory, but notes that Claude.ai cannot access these directly.
📖 Read the full source: r/ClaudeAI
👀 See Also
Local Fine-Tuning of Llama 3.2-1B for Secret Detection Surpasses Wiz's Model
A developer replicated and improved upon Wiz's secret detection model using purely local AI, achieving 88% precision and 84.4% recall with Llama 3.2-1B. The process involved dataset augmentation with procedural generation and local labeling using Qwen3-Coder-Next.
Deep Research Reports with Hermes Agent and Qwen3.6-35b-a3b: A Practical Walkthrough
A social researcher shares their workflow using Hermes Agent and qwen3.6-35b-a3b Q6_K to produce 21-page policy reports autonomously, with full repo of prompts, skills, and intermediate artifacts.
Onboarding AI agents like junior contractors: CLAUDE.md and production lessons
A store run entirely with AI agents treated onboarding like hiring a junior contractor, finding that clear constraints in a CLAUDE.md document consistently outperformed 'smarter' models with vague instructions.
Claude Opus 4.7 in Real Incident Response: Solo Closing a Healthcare Malware Breach in 5 Hours
A security engineer used Claude Opus 4.7 to reverse-engineer Python bytecode RAT, draft HIPAA risk assessments, and write 12 forensic scripts — closing a 60-person practice malware incident solo in 5 hours instead of a 3-6 person team taking a week.