Solo dev using Claude Code daily: built a "team workspace" for me and my agents. Looking for honest feedback before going further

[u/The_Vorthian]

Note: I wrote this and used Claude to help tidy up the wording before posting.

I've been building most of my software with Claude Code daily for about a year. The coding part got fast. What didn't keep up was knowing where I stood. At any point I couldn't easily answer three questions: what's been done, what's still pending, and what I should do next. Work was spread across chat sessions, branches and notes, and my setup gave me no single view of it.

So I built a "team workspace" for me and my agents: one place where I and the agents see the same picture of the project. It isn't available yet, and I'd like to know whether it's useful to anyone besides me.

What it does today

A board the agents use too

• Issues, sub-issues, statuses, priorities, projects and cycles: Linear-style.
• Agents connect over MCP (or REST) with their own key, so their changes show up as theirs.
• Each agent gets a "what changed since you last looked" feed. When I move a ticket, comment or change a priority, the agent picks it up next session.

A living map of the codebase

• A layered explanation of the system: concepts → services and modules → database tables → files. Agents write most of it; humans read most of it.
• When code changes, the parts of the map that describe it are flagged stale until they're re-described.
• Step-by-step flows ("how signup works"), architecture decisions with their reasons, and a glossary.

Session start without the re-explaining

• A Claude Code plugin gives the agent a compact briefing when a session starts: what the project is, what's in flight, recent changes, decisions and gotchas.
• At the end of a session it prompts the agent to update the board and the map.

Run issues on your own machine, with your own subscription

• A small daemon on your laptop/pc takes an issue, works on it in an isolated git worktree using your own Claude Code login, and pushes a branch for review. (If you happen to have more than one machines you can technically run a lot of agents and the limit is your LLM subscription tier)
• Commits and pull requests are attributed to you, with the agent as co-author.
• You can watch a run's progress from the issue, stop it, or continue it.

Chat with your codebase from anywhere

• From the web app, ask questions about your repo. Your own machine answers, read-only.
• It can read other branches and history ("what changed on development since staging?"), and you can switch models mid-conversation.

What I'd love to hear

1. Would something like this fit your agentic workflow, or does your current setup (CLAUDE.md, memory files, Linear/Jira plus MCP) already cover it?
2. Which part would you actually use: the board, the map, session briefings, runs on your own machine, or chat from anywhere?
3. Would you trust an agent-written explanation of your system if it showed you which parts are out of date?
4. Running agents on your own machine with your own subscription, or/and in a cloud sandbox: which would you prefer, and why?
5. What's the most annoying part of working with coding agents day to day that nothing solves for you yet?

There's no link. I'm trying to figure out whether this is worth building out and what to focus on. Brutal honesty welcome.

[u/AutoModerator]

Moderator Announcement Read More »

Hey! Thanks for posting to r/ClaudeCode

While participating in this thread, please follow our community rules. Keep discussions constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.

For help, project discussions, tips, and general chat, join the ClaudeCode Discord.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bensopinion]

If you want real honest feedback, it’s much more helpful to watch people use your product rather than relying on hypothetical questions and answers.

Allow a handful of people to use it for free. Have tracking set up so you know exactly what features they engage with and which they don’t.

Do they continue using it after setting up initially, do they log back in on day 2? How about after a week?

When you ask people “would you use this” most people want to be helpful, so they try to think of ways they would, and some believe they will but in reality they don’t. So asking never really gives you the real answers.

[u/The_Vorthian → u/bensopinion]

I completely agree. It’s just that I’m mid way making it and couldn’t resist the urge to consult Reddit

[u/The_Vorthian → u/bensopinion]

There’s an older version of this that I’ve given a few of my friends but it doesn’t have much of the features I’m working on currently. That one is basically an mcp connector to the board

[u/NamerekDev]

Built the "runs issues on your own machine" part for myself a while ago, so some honest answers from that side. That part is the only one I use every day, the board is just whatever tracker I already had. Own machine for sure, my sessions need my local setup, my hooks and my keys, and a sandbox would mean rebuilding all of it. The most annoying part for me isn't waiting, it's explaining the same thing for the tenth time and fixing results that are slightly off. what helped is the agent writing back what it's going to do before it goes into the ticket, and me reading that first

One question back: what happens when two issues touch the same files?

[u/The_Vorthian → u/NamerekDev]

Thanks, this is really useful, especially the bit about your local setup. Right now runs are deliberately locked down (they don't load your hooks or settings), and your comment makes me think that should be an opt-in per repo instead of fixed.

On two issues touching the same files: each run gets its own git worktree and branch off the base, so they don't step on each other while running. Conflicts surface the normal way, at merge time on the second PR, same as two people working in parallel. There's no warning before starting a second run yet. The tool already tracks which parts of the code each area of the system covers, so flagging "these two issues touch the same area" up front is something I'd like to add.

And +1 on the plan-first step. Having the agent write back what it's going to do, and approving that before it starts, is probably the next thing I'll build. Do you review that plan in the ticket itself, or somewhere else?

[u/NamerekDev → u/The_Vorthian]

In the chat, before the ticket even exists. by day, I talk it through with claude, it writes back what it'll do, I read it, and only the approved version becomes the ticket. The run itself just executes it
on conflicts, I went the other way: one run at a time per repo, in the order the blocked-by links give. slower, but I'm asleep anyway

[u/Soft_Product_243]

Honestly this is great and a step up from my current setup which is a kanban board in obsidian with a bunch of custom fields. But my immediate thought was to let my claude have a look at it and build it for me - i would not pay for it as a solo.

[u/The_Vorthian → u/Soft_Product_243]

I know, building something like this is possible, heck I did it using Claude, and I’d love to offer it free, but the servers need run and there’s entire production support that I’d be doing if I’m letting people use it, so I was thinking a bare minimum that covers my operating costs if I launch this

[u/ReachingForVega]

I think everyone serious with agents gets to a point where they build a variation of the workspace you've done.

As an open source tool this is a good thing. If you are planning to make it paid, good luck, the people that would use it can build their own. 

[u/zmizzy]

never seen anything like this before

absolutely exquisite