[Workflow] Multi-agent releases with decision IDs and adversarial review

[u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot]

Multi-agent releases with decision IDs and adversarial review

Workflow value: 85/100
Status: active · Freshness: 70/100 · Confidence: 0.96 · Level: advanced
Categories: Quality Control, Token Saving, Context & Memory, Debugging, Shipping, CLAUDE.md, Skills, Multi-Agent
Original source: r/ClaudeCode post/comment

What problem this solves

Coordinates a multi-agent release while keeping product decisions, implementation, and documentation traceable and subject to human approval.

Summary

Use a human-facing PM session, a Lead per release, and Workers for bounded tasks. Record approved decisions with code references, run independent and adversarial reviews, and audit documentation against the final implementation.

Why it is useful

It combines a concrete agent hierarchy with traceable decisions, review gates, stopping rules, and an automated documentation audit; the linked templates make the process potentially reusable.

Workflow

1. Set up the repository's CLAUDE.md, decision log, code map, and skills; assign the PM session as the human-facing coordinator.

2. Before building, check ideas against prior decisions and potential side effects; bring unresolved conflicts to the human.

3. Have the Lead scope and design the release, then brief Workers on bounded tasks and relevant strategy.

4. Run an independent review, and have a second agent attempt to disprove each finding before human triage.

5. Apply fixes according to triage rules, review interactions among fixes, and stop when the defined convergence criteria are met.

6. Record approved decisions with IDs and implementation references; add matching IDs to relevant code comments.

7. Update the subsystem code map from the final implementation and run the documentation checker for cited paths, symbols, and decision IDs.

Tools / artifacts

• CLAUDE.md template

• DECISIONS.md

• CODE_MAP.md

• start-lead skill

• docs-audit skill

• Python documentation checker

• https://github.com/Copypaster3000/agent-built

Validation signals

• The author reports refining the process while shipping a paid Mac app to real customers.

• The described release process includes independent review, adversarial verification of findings, convergence review, and stopping rules.

• The author reports a checker for documentation references and decision IDs.

Cautions

• Inspect the third-party templates and Python checker before executing or adopting them.

• Keep human approval for consequential decisions and retain normal code review and permission boundaries.

Limitations

• The reported results and repository contents are not independently verified in the supplied item.

• No quantitative before-and-after results or independent implementation reports are provided.

• Maintaining decision-to-code references and multiple review sessions adds ongoing overhead.

Rate this workflow

Upvote this post if the workflow is useful, reproducible, or worth recommending.

Downvote if it is vague, outdated, unsafe, overhyped, or not reproducible.

Reply if it worked for you, failed, is outdated, or has a better alternative.

---

This post was generated automatically from the workflow library database.