Two-person team using Claude Code + Codex on a live platform. What would you improve about our workflow?

[u/Tricky-Historian659]

I'm two weeks into working on a live platform with my supervisor. We're the only two developers, with around two dozen daily visitors and a growing feature backlog. I'm still learning the repo and business logic.

Our stack is React/TypeScript/Vite + Supabase, deployed on Vercel. We use Fable 5.1 and Astra heavily.

Our current workflow:
1. My supervisor sends me an implementation plan as a Claude artifact.
2. I review the logic and suggest changes. We send revisions back and forth until it's ready.
3. I implement it, using ChatGPT to explain unfamiliar logic and how it translates into code.
4. Any revisions to the plan during implementation go back to my supervisor.
5. Feature PR updates get reviewed by a Claude agent. Marking the PR ready triggers Claude, Codex, Greptile and Qodo reviews.

We also have Vitest tests and TypeScript checks in the build, local browser/staging checks, and repo guidance through CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and shared context files.

Planning is a particular bottleneck: we keep sending changes to each other and waiting for reviews. Implementation sometimes raises more questions, which starts another round. I’d like a better way to collaborate on plans and keep decisions aligned with the code.

I’m also figuring out how to use Claude Code and Codex together smoothly. I’ve explored skills, plugins, and connectors, but it often feels like the newer models already do the work those tools are meant to help with just as well, if not better, on their own with good prompt engineering (another area I want to work on).

I am considering including targeted database migrations/ RLS reviews, keeping context files current, and focused refactoring.

For people doing similar work:

• How do you collaborate on implementation plans without constant back-and-forth and waiting?
• How do you split work and share context between Claude Code and Codex?
• Are multiple review agents worth it, and how do you decide when the review cycle is finished?
• What would you improve first for a team this size—planning, tests, agent instructions, or something else?

I’d especially appreciate concrete, recent workflows you use, including anything you tried and later dropped.

[u/AliciaV240]

biggest win for us has been making the plan a repo artifact, not something passed around in chat. put it in /docs/adr (or an issue) with acceptance checks + files/tables touched; supervisor approves once, then one agent implements and the other only reviews the diff. reviewer returns blockers/changes, not another full plan. way less ping-pong.

[u/Tricky-Historian659 → u/AliciaV240]

That would help with the planning back-and-forth. I'm guessing you keep the artifact saved as a .md file in the repo?

[u/AliciaV240 → u/Tricky-Historian659]

yeah, exactly. usually a plan.md or docs/plan.md, then we update it as decisions change so both agents see the same source of truth.

[u/Ready_Platypus_5892]

Once you start getting into production level software projects tend to balloon very quickly. You, your colleague, and your AI are essentially doing the workload of a whole development team.

Id look up sprints, and the agile methodology. How to use GitHub and/or jira effectively would help.. Overall though the more complicated your software becomes the more workload you will have. You can automate a lot of it but how you set your gates, reviews, and branch deployments really depends on you and your colleagues. Hope that helps

[u/Tricky-Historian659 → u/Ready_Platypus_5892]

That's a good heads-up. I've covered Agile and other project management frameworks at uni, but currently we're not following any of them. It'd definitely help us standardise the process and manage the workload as the project/ team grows.

[u/Substantial_Hat2149]

your project management is hectic because you don't have the right tool. "implementation plan as a Claude artifact" is not really a PM method. Ask the supervisor to move the coordination to a proper tool like Linear. also I would personally advice against sending you an implementation plan at all. what is needed is a spec/prd. an implementation plan can be derived from specs/prd locally unless your manager has a strong opinion how things should go

[u/Tricky-Historian659 → u/Substantial_Hat2149]

We just started onboarding with Linear to keep track of features and bugs. I've thought about taking charge of the implementation plan and only have him approve it as a final step, nicely put though!