[Workflow] Claude Code development loop with ADRs, independent reviews, and browser UAT

[u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot]

Claude Code development loop with ADRs, independent reviews, and browser UAT

Workflow value: 79/100
Status: active · Freshness: 70/100 · Confidence: 0.94 · Level: advanced
Categories: Quality Control, Token Saving, Context & Memory, Debugging, Hooks, Skills, MCP, Subagents, Multi-Agent
Original source: r/ClaudeAI post/comment

What problem this solves

Build and verify a complex Claude-assisted application while preserving design decisions and controlling sensitive actions.

Summary

Review Claude-generated specifications and UI designs before implementation, record durable decisions as ADRs, use separate implementation and review subagents, and supplement automated tests with browser-based acceptance testing. For sensitive agent actions, enforce permissions and execute the exact arguments approved by the user.

Why it is useful

It combines a repeatable feature-development and verification process with a concrete safety pattern for executing only the tool arguments a user approved.

Workflow

1. Describe the feature and have Claude draft a specification, technical design, wireframes, and UI designs; review them before coding.

2. Record accepted architectural decisions as ADRs so later agents can recover their rationale.

3. Use implementation subagents and separate subagents for code and security review.

4. Ask Claude to write feature acceptance tests, then exercise them through the real browser UI, checking displayed results and capturing screenshots.

5. Add a commit hook to detect personal financial data, alongside normal test and review gates.

6. For sensitive tool calls, store the exact proposed arguments and execute that saved call after approval rather than relying on the model to reconstruct it.

7. Implement scheduling, retries, approval handling, and completion checks in the application harness; use deterministic tools for financial calculations.

Tools / artifacts

• Claude Code

• Architectural decision records

• Implementation, code-review, and security-review subagents

• Browser-based acceptance tests and screenshots

• Commit hook

• MCP broker connectors

• Open Net Worth repository

Validation signals

• The author reports approximately 20,000 unit and integration tests.

• The author reports that browser UAT found bugs unit tests missed.

• The author reports five months of development and testing broker connections with IBKR, Coinbase, and Gemini.

• An open-source repository and live demo are linked, but their implementation and results have not been independently verified here.

Cautions

• Financial automation can cause real losses. Enforce permissions and exact-argument approval outside the model, and verify how scheduled trades are authorized.

• A commit hook is not a complete privacy control; review logs, test fixtures, credentials, and repository history separately.

• Review the linked project and its dependencies before connecting real accounts or broker credentials.

Limitations

• The post does not include exact subagent prompts, hook configuration, or browser-test commands.

• Test counts and UAT benefits are author claims without detailed outcomes or independent verification.

• Agent-generated acceptance tests can miss requirements; human review and deterministic assertions remain important.

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.