Every developer just became a team lead. Every manager just inherited a department. Claude didn't just change what we build. It changed the job.
That job deserves better tools than a tabbed set of chats. Nobody wants to micromanage — you want to delegate.
Cate's Build flow manages your Claudes with a process you already know — plan, code, review, ship. You've got three agents running. One's planning. One's coding. One's reviewing. In Cate, those are planners, coders, and reviewers — every agent session knows its role. A Claude planner can hand a spec to a Claude coder. Cate handles the handoffs:
- Planners write specs and file issues.
- Coders spin up their own Git worktree and branch to build a PR.
- Reviewers two-phase check it — spec compliance first, then code quality.
- You review what passes.
- Everyone writes down what they did for the team to use later.
That's the whole loop. Here's what each step looks like in practice.
Planners plan the work
When you kick off a planner, it knows its only job is to create a spec — whether that ends up in Jira, Linear, GitHub, or local storage. Try to get it to write code, and it'll push back. Hard.
Instead, planners ask questions about your logic, find gaps in your assumptions,
and research what you don't know you don't know. Anything new or novel becomes
part of your
collective context — permanent knowledge shared by all
sessions and humans, captured in your repository's
.cate/research directory and
the tools you already use: Jira, Linear, GitHub. If a planner isn't sure about
something, it'll grab a sub-agent to review the spec and reach consensus before
it bothers you.
You give direction. The spec shows up in your queue.
Coders work the plan
Planners hand specs to coders. Short-term specialists, they start with a quick orientation: the collective context and your project's guardrails — testing standards, lint rules, formatting conventions. Then they grab the next To Do issue from your board and work toward a PR.
No chat window. No check-ins. Just a pull request when they're done.
Reviewers protect your time
Like traditional QA, Cate's reviewers are the gatekeepers standing between your schedule and AI slop. Point by point, they verify the code meets the spec. Then they do a deep dive on quality. If something fails, it goes straight back to a coder, not to you.
A reviewer has to approve a change before it moves to Ready for Review on your board.
The proof is in the workflow
This might sound traditional. It is. Plan just enough to solve a problem, solve it, run it through agentic QA, fix what comes back, and then it's ready for your eyes. It's the way teams that ship have always worked, encapsulated in one app on your laptop.
Before I started typing this post, I flagged an issue: a button that disappears in light mode. I wrote a two-sentence description. A Claude wrote the spec. Another Claude opened the PR. A third reviewed it. By the time I got to this paragraph, it was waiting for my review.
That's the new job. And I didn't have to micromanage a thing.
Ready to become a team? Request early access to Cate, or get in touch — we'd love to hear what you're building.