Plan G: AI Coding Workflow (Requirements to Delivery)

Clarify requirements → technical plan → scaffold → incremental coding → test & debug → review & commit

Time
1-4 hours / feature
Cost
Medium
Difficulty
Advanced

Best for

Best for new features, small tools, static sites and automation scripts — from a vague requirement to shippable code.

Steps

Clarify requirements

10-20 min

ChatGPT / Claude + you

Turn a vague requirement into clear acceptance criteria: goal, inputs/outputs, edge cases, and what NOT to build. Let the model ask the gaps you missed — this decides how much you rework.

💡Write 'when X happens, then Y' acceptance cases so the AI and you are on the same page.

Technical plan

10-20 min

Claude / ChatGPT

Decide stack and architecture (language, framework, data structures, interfaces) first, with the model comparing options and trade-offs. Settle the plan before writing code.

💡Ask for the simplest runnable MVP first, then expand — steadier than designing everything up front.

Scaffold and skeleton

10-30 min

Cursor / Claude Code

Initialize the project, directory structure, dependencies and base config until the code runs. Use templates or agent scaffolding to cut manual labor.

💡git init early and commit in small steps so anything can roll back.

Incremental coding

1-2 hours

Cursor / Claude Code / Copilot

Implement in small steps — finish one feature/module and verify it before moving on. Let coding agents (Claude Code / Cursor Composer) edit and run autonomously, so problems trace to a specific step.

💡Commit every verifiable unit; generating one giant feature at once is how big hidden bugs happen.

Test and debug

30-60 min

Test framework + AI

Write unit tests for critical logic, manually verify edge and error paths, and feed error logs to the model for diagnosis. Let AI write tests, run them and fix regressions.

💡Describe exactly how to reproduce before asking the model — hit rate jumps; test empty, huge and invalid inputs separately.

Review and commit

20-30 min

Code Review / review agent

Self-review the diff, run an AI security/correctness/performance pass, fix findings, and write a clear PR description (what changed, why, how tested).

💡Include test results and reproduction steps in the PR; reviews pass faster and rollbacks are easy.

Tools involved

Pitfalls to avoid

Coding before clarifying requirements

Vague requirements mean guaranteed rework; ten minutes writing acceptance criteria is the cheapest investment.

Generating one giant feature at once

Big one-shot output buries bugs where they're hard to find; incremental coding with per-step verification is the reliable rhythm.

Shipping without running tests

AI code looks plausible but breaks at the edges; at minimum test the critical paths.

Stale libraries / guessed APIs

Models may suggest outdated APIs; confirm library versions and signatures (e.g. with context7) or regenerate against current docs.

Related Workflows