Show HN: Project management system for Claude Code
50 comments
·August 20, 2025jdmoreira
I'm a huge fan of Claude Code. That being said it blows my mind people can use this at a higher level than I do. I really need to approve every single edit and keep an eye on it at ALL TIMES, otherwise it goes haywire very very fast!
How are people using auto-edits and these kind of higher-level abstraction?
blitzar
The secret to being an elite 10x dev - push 1000's of lines of code, soak up the ooo's and ahhh's at the standup when management highlight your amazingly large line count, post to linkedin about how great and humble you are, then move to the next role before anyone notices you contribute nothing but garbage and some loser 0.1x dev has to spend months fixing something they could have writting in a week or two from scratch.
aososidjbd
This has been my experience with coworkers who are big vibe coders as well. Another “sorry, big PR coming in that needs a review” and I’m gonna lose it. 50 comments later and they still don’t change.
When using agents like this, you only see a speedup because you’re offloading the time you’d spend thinking / understanding the code. If you can review code faster than you can write it, you’re cutting corners on your code reviews. Which is normally fine with humans (this is why we pay them), but not AI. Most people just code review for nitpicks anyways (rename a variable, add some white space, use map reduce instead of for each) instead of taking time to understand the change (you’ll be looking a lots of code and docs that aren’t present in the diff).
That is, unless you type really slowly - which I’ve recently discovered is actually a bottle neck for some professionals (slow typing, syntax issues, constantly checking docs, etc). I’ll add I experience this too when learning a new language and AI is immensely helpful.
fzeindl
This. I‘m always amazed on how LLMs are praised for being able to churn out the large amount of code we apparently all need.
I keep wondering why. All projects I ever saw need lines of code, nuts and bolts removed instead of added. My best libraries consist of a couple of thousand lines.
ttcbj
I think Steve Ballmer's quote was something like "Measure a software project's progress by increase in lines-of-code is like measuring an airplane project's progress by increase in weight."
semitones
LLMs are a godsend when it comes to developing things that fit into one of the tens of thousands (or however many) of templates they have memorized. For instance, a lot of modern B2B software development involves updating CRUD interfaces and APIs to data. If you already have 50 or so CRUD functions in an existing layered architecture implemented, asking an LLM to implement the 51st, given a spec, is a _huge_ time-saver. Of course, you still need to use your human brain to verify before hand that there aren't special edge cases that need to be considered. Sometimes, you can explain the edge cases to the LLM and it will do a perfect job of figuring them out (assuming you do a good job of explaining it, and it's not too complicated). And if there aren't any real edge cases to worry about, then the LLM can one-shot a perfect PR (assuming you did the work to give it the context).
Of course, there are many many other kinds of development - when developing novel low-level systems for complicated requirements, you're going to get much poorer results from an LLM, because the project won't as neatly fit in to one of the "templates" that it has memorized, and the LLM's reasoning capabilities are not yet sophisticated enough to handle arbitrary novelty.
rs186
You can't, at least for production code. I have used Claude Code for vibe coding several side projects now, some just for fun, others more serious and need to be well written and maintainable. For the former, as long as it works, I don't care, but I could easily see issues like dependency management. Then for the latter, because I actually need to personally verify every detail of the final product and review (which means "scan" at the least) the code, I always see a lot of issues -- tightly coupled code that makes testing difficult, missing test cases, using regex when it shouldn't, having giant classes that are impossible to read/maintain. Well, many of the issues you see humans do. I needed to constantly interrupt and ask it to do something different.
the_mitsuhiko
> You can't, at least for production code.
You can. People do. It's not perfect at it yet, but there are success stories of this.
stavros
Do you know of any links to writeups (or just mentions) of this?
noodletheworld
Are you talking about the same thing as the OP?
I mean, the parent even pointed out that it works for vibe coding and stuff you don't care about; ...but the 'You can't' refers to this question by the OP:
> I really need to approve every single edit and keep an eye on it at ALL TIMES, otherwise it goes haywire very very fast! How are people using auto-edits and these kind of higher-level abstraction?
No one I've spoken to is just sitting back writing tickets while agents do all the work. If it was that easy to be that successful, everyone would be doing it. Everyone would be talking about it.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that you can't use agents to modify existing code. You can. I do; lots of people do. ...but that's using it like you see in all the demos and videos; at a code level, in an editor, while editing and working on the code yourself.
I'm specifically addressing the OPs question:
Can you use unsupervised agents, where you don't interact at a 'code' level, only at a high level abstraction level?
...and, I don't think you can. I don't believe anyone is doing this. I don't believe I've seen any real stories of people doing this successfully.
rockyj
I could not even (as of yesterday) get some boilerplate code out of AI. It very confidently spitted code which would not even compile (multiple times). Yes, it is better than parsing StackoverFlow pages when I have some specific task or error and sometimes slightly better than reading a bunch of docs for a library, but even then I have to verify if it is giving code / examples from latest versions.
machiaweliczny
You can just tell it to read library code in npm_modules or wherever you have vendored libs in your framework. I for example give it whole demo examples and just say look at @demos/ how to do this. Cursor / CC authors don't add these prompts as this would be costly for them (and they run at loss likely now).
grim_io
Deep down you know the answer already :)
There is no magic way. It boils down to less strict inspection.
I try to maintain an overall direction and try to care less about the individual line of code.
Nizoss
Same, I manually approve and steer each operation. I don't see how cleaning up and simplifying after the fact is easier or faster.
ddxv
I think a lot of the AI stuff suffers from being better suited to showing off than actually working. How often have I thought, or worse told my friends, that it one shotted some issue of mine only to realize later that it was only partially working. Devils in the details.
allisdust
Through multi pass development. It's a bit like how processes happen inside a biological cell. There is no structure there. Structure emerges out of chaos. Same thing is with AI coding tools. Especially Claude code. We are letting code evolve to pass our quality gates. I do get to sit on my hands a lot though which frees up my time.
aroussi
Yeah, I agree. I never let the AI make any architectural decisions (and I also watch Claude Code like a hawk lol). That being said, since we started using this system, we noticed that our PRDs and implementation plans (epics) became more detailed, giving the AI a lot less wiggle room.
Essentially, I'm treating Claude Code as a very fast junior developer who needs to be spoon-fed with the architecture.
moconnor
"Teams using this system report:
89% less time lost to context switching
5-8 parallel tasks vs 1 previously
75% reduction in bug rates
3x faster feature delivery"
The rest of the README is llm-generated so I kinda suspect these numbers are hallucinated, aka lies. They also conflict somewhat with your "cut shipping time roughly in half" quote, which I'm more likely to trust.
Are there real numbers you can share with us? Looks like a genuinely interesting project!
tummler
A project management layer is a huge missing piece in AI coding right now. Proper scoping, documentation, management, etc is essential to getting good results. The people who are having the most success with “vibe coding” have figured this out, but it should really be incorporated into the process.
tmvphil
Sorry, I'm going to be critical:
"We follow a strict 5-phase discipline" - So we're doing waterfall again? Does this seem appealing to anyone? The problem is you always get the requirements and spec wrong, and then AI slavishly delivers something that meets spec but doesn't meet the need.
What happens when you get to the end of your process and you are unhappy with the result? Do you throw it out and rewrite the requirements and start from scratch? Do you try to edit the requirements spec and implementation in a coordinated way? Do you throw out the spec and just vibe code? Do you just accept the bad output and try to build a new fix with a new set of requirements on top of it?
(Also the llm authored readme is hard to read for me. Everything is a bullet point or emoji and it is not structured in a way that makes it clear what it is. I didn't even know what a PRD meant until halfway through)
jcmontx
Waterfall is what works for most consulting businesses. Clients like the buzz of agile but they won't budge on scope, budget or timeframe. You end up being forced to do waterfall.
tmvphil
Waterfall might be what you need when dealing with external human clients, but why would you voluntarily impose it on yourself in miniature?
dc10tonite
Yep. And you often end up doing waterfall with a veneer of agile that ends up being worse than either one.
dcreater
This is a more advanced version of what I'm doing.
I was impressed that someone took it up to this level till I saw the tell tale signs of the AI generated content in the README. Now I have no faith that this is a system that was developed, iterated and tested to actually work and not just a prompt to an AI to dress up a more down to earth workflow like mine.
Evidence of results improvement using this system is needed.
aroussi
Damn those em dashes lol
Kidding aside, of course we used AI to build this tool and get it ready for the "public". This includes the README.
I will post a video here and on the repository over the weekend with an end-to-end tutorial on how the system works.
brainless
I love what is happening in this domain, so many people experimenting. Thanks for sharing this.
I recently launched https://letsorder.app, https://github.com/brainless/letsorder.
100% of the product (2 web UI apps, 1 backend, 1 marketing site) was generated by LLMs, including deployment scripts. I follow a structured approach. My workflow is a mix of Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Qwen Code or other coding CLI tools with GitHub (issues, documentation, branches, worktrees, PRs, CI, CodeRabbit and other checks). I have recently started documenting my thoughts about user flow with voice and transcribe them. It has shown fantastic results.
Now I am building https://github.com/brainless/nocodo as the most ambitious project I have tried with LLMs (vibe coding). It runs the entire developer setup on a managed Linux server and gives you access through desktop and mobile apps. All self-hosted on your cloud accounts. It would basically be taking an idea to going live with full stack software.
swader999
The advantage with using multiple agents is in context management, not parallelization. A main agent can orchestrate sub agents. The goal is to not overwhelm the main agent with specialized context for each step that can be delegated to separate task focused agents along the way.
Test runner sub agent knows exactly how to run tests, summarize failures etc. It loads up all the context specific to running tests and frees the main agent's context from all that. And so on...
aroussi
100%! Use agents as "context firewalls". Let them read files, run tests, research bugs, etc, and pass essential data back to the main thread.
yodon
Lots of thought went into this. It would be very helpful to see examples of the various workflows and documents. Perhaps a short video of the system in use?
cahaya
I was also looking for a video. The concept sounds good, but feels like I need to learn a lot of new commands, or have a cheat sheet next to me to be able to be able to use the framework.
aroussi
Cheatsheet is available via /pm:help
With that being said, a video will be coming very soon.
aroussi
Great idea! I'll whip something up over the weekend and post the video here and on the repo
raimille1
Agree! I see a lot of pontential here, just hard to get a grasp.
thomask1995
OK I need to give this a go. tbh, I've been going back to just writing stuff manually and asking ChatGPT doc questions.
I talked to and extremely strong engineer yesterday who is basically doing exactly this.
Would love to see a video/graphic of this in action.
aroussi
I'm going to create a video and post it both here and on the repository over the weekend
stronglikedan
And I'm going to reply here so that I remember to check back! Thanks!
greggh
Good idea. I'd love a video.
nivertech
Task decomposition is the most important aspect of software design and SDLC.
Hopefully, your GitHub tickets are large enough, such as covering one vertical scope, one cross-cutting function, or some reactive work such as bug fixing or troubleshooting.
The reason is that coding agents are good at decomposing work into small tasks/TODO lists. IMO, too many tickets on GitHub will interfere with this.
aroussi
I agree wholeheartedly!
When we break down an epics into tasks, we get CC to analyze what can be run in parallel and use each issue as a conceptual grouping of smaller tasks, so multiple agents can work on the same issue in parallel.
The issues are relatively large, and depending on the feature, every epic has between 5 to 15 issues. When it's time to work on the issue, your local cloud code will break it down into minute tasks to carry out sequentially.
jamauro
Looks interesting. How do you make sure that agents that need to collaborate on the solution actually collaborate if they’re working in parallel?
aroussi
We gave up on that dream a while back lol. Instead, we analyze which tasks can be run in parallel (different files, etc) and which need to be worked on sequentially.
nikolayasdf123
when you go to their website some person immediately starts talking to you at the bottom left corner. this is hilarious, websites today got to tune it down a bit with sales
I built a lightweight project management workflow to keep AI-driven development organized.
The problem was that context kept disappearing between tasks. With multiple Claude agents running in parallel, I’d lose track of specs, dependencies, and history. External PM tools didn’t help because syncing them with repos always created friction.
The solution was to treat GitHub Issues as the database. The "system" is ~50 bash scripts and markdown configs that:
- Brainstorm with you to create a markdown PRD, spins up an epic, and decomposes it into tasks and syncs them with GitHub issues - Track progress across parallel streams - Keep everything traceable back to the original spec - Run fast from the CLI (commands finish in seconds)
We’ve been using it internally for a few months and it’s cut our shipping time roughly in half. Repo: https://github.com/automazeio/ccpm
It’s still early and rough around the edges, but has worked well for us. I’d love feedback from others experimenting with GitHub-centric project management or AI-driven workflows.