Practical Use Cases for Software Development
Current Workflow Reality Check
Based on your description, you’re dealing with:
- 9 months of prompting without standardized, reusable prompts
- Manual human oversight required for all AI interactions
- Endless documentation and manual processes
- Context-fresh prompts that need TLC (tender loving care)
- Need for sequential pipelines that complete tasks to 100%
Immediate High-Value Use Cases
1. Documentation Generation Pipelines
# docs_generator.yaml
workflow:
name: elixir_documentation_generator
steps:
- name: analyze_module
type: claude_extract
prompt: "Analyze this Elixir module and extract its purpose, functions, and dependencies"
- name: generate_docs
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Generate comprehensive documentation for this module"
- name: validate_docs
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Validate documentation completeness and accuracy"
Why This Works Now:
- Documentation has predictable structure
- Errors are non-fatal (just bad docs, not broken code)
- Can be manually reviewed before committing
- High repeatability across modules
2. Code Review Automation
# code_review_pipeline.yaml
workflow:
name: elixir_code_review
steps:
- name: syntax_analysis
type: claude_extract
prompt: "Analyze this Elixir code for syntax issues and OTP compliance"
- name: pattern_analysis
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Identify anti-patterns and suggest improvements"
- name: security_review
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Review for security vulnerabilities and best practices"
Why This Works Now:
- Review criteria are well-defined
- False positives are acceptable (human reviews anyway)
- Can catch obvious issues automatically
- Reduces manual review burden
3. Test Generation Pipelines
# test_generator.yaml
workflow:
name: elixir_test_generator
steps:
- name: analyze_function
type: claude_extract
prompt: "Analyze this function and identify test scenarios"
- name: generate_tests
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Generate comprehensive ExUnit tests for all scenarios"
- name: validate_tests
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Ensure tests compile and cover edge cases"
Why This Works Now:
- Test structure is predictable
- Can run tests to verify correctness
- Saves significant manual effort
- Easy to review and modify generated tests
4. Refactoring Analysis Pipelines
# refactoring_analyzer.yaml
workflow:
name: elixir_refactoring_analyzer
steps:
- name: complexity_analysis
type: claude_extract
prompt: "Analyze code complexity and identify refactoring opportunities"
- name: suggest_refactoring
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Suggest specific refactoring strategies"
- name: generate_refactored_code
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Generate refactored version with improvements"
Why This Works Now:
- Analysis is non-destructive
- Suggestions can be manually validated
- Large time savings for complex refactoring
- Can be applied incrementally
Medium-Value Use Cases (Proceed with Caution)
5. API Documentation Generation
- Good: Consistent structure, easy to validate
- Risk: May miss nuanced API behaviors
- Mitigation: Manual review of generated docs
6. Database Schema Analysis
- Good: Structured data, clear patterns
- Risk: Could suggest breaking changes
- Mitigation: Never auto-apply suggestions
7. Configuration File Generation
- Good: Template-based, predictable structure
- Risk: Invalid configurations could break systems
- Mitigation: Validate all generated configs
Sequential Pipeline Strategy
For your need for sequential pipelines that complete tasks to 100%:
Pipeline Chaining Pattern
# sequential_task_pipeline.yaml
workflow:
name: complete_task_sequence
steps:
- name: analyze_requirement
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Thoroughly analyze this requirement and break it down"
- name: plan_implementation
type: claude_extract
prompt: "Create detailed implementation plan"
- name: implement_solution
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Implement the solution following the plan"
- name: validate_implementation
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Validate implementation meets all requirements"
- name: generate_tests
type: claude_robust
prompt: "Generate comprehensive tests"
- name: final_review
type: claude_smart
prompt: "Perform final review and provide completion report"
Critical Success Factors
- Validation at Each Step: Each step must validate the previous step’s output
- Error Recovery: Built-in retry logic and fallback strategies
- Human Checkpoints: Strategic points for human review
- Incremental Progress: Each step builds on validated previous work
Addressing Your Specific Challenges
Problem: “MY BRAIN IS NEEDED AT ALL TIMES”
Solution: Use pipelines for preparatory work rather than final decisions
- Generate analysis and options, you make final choices
- Automate research and data gathering
- Pre-generate documentation drafts for review
Problem: “No standardized prompts despite 9 months”
Solution: Use pipeline generation to create prompt templates
- Generate reusable prompt patterns
- Build library of validated prompts
- Version control successful prompt combinations
Problem: “No TLC agents or automated reviewers”
Solution: Build validation pipelines
- Multi-step validation processes
- Automated quality checks
- Structured review criteria
Problem: “Catching Claude doing dumb shit”
Solution: Use robust step types with validation
claude_robust
for critical operations- Multiple validation steps
- Fallback strategies for common errors
Recommended Implementation Approach
Phase 1: Template Library (Immediate)
- Create 5-10 proven pipeline templates
- Manually validate each template works
- Document successful patterns
- Build reusable component library
Phase 2: Quality Assurance (Short-term)
- Add validation steps to all pipelines
- Implement error recovery mechanisms
- Create automated testing for pipelines
- Build quality metrics dashboard
Phase 3: Workflow Integration (Medium-term)
- Integrate with existing development workflow
- Add git hooks for automated pipeline execution
- Create CI/CD integration
- Build custom step types for your specific needs
Bottom Line Assessment
Can this make you productive NOW?
YES, but with significant caveats:
- Use for non-critical tasks where errors are acceptable
- Always maintain human oversight for final decisions
- Focus on research and analysis rather than code generation
- Build incrementally from simple to complex use cases
- Validate everything before using in production
The system’s current limitations actually align well with your workflow needs - it can automate the research and preparation work while leaving critical decisions to human judgment.