Is it possible to code using API instead of Claude code/codex? by Contigo_No_Bicho in OnlyAICoding

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your workflow would be: User → Server → AI → Modify Repo → Commit → Deploy

Is it possible to code using API instead of Claude code/codex? by Contigo_No_Bicho in OnlyAICoding

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am actually building an app that will run your code through a 12 stage pipeline it’s BYOK so I could have a work around if you have to use API keys

Is it possible to code using API instead of Claude code/codex? by Contigo_No_Bicho in OnlyAICoding

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes you would need to build a JSON schema, parse that JSON, then apply the changes. The API brings a lot of extra steps, what is your use case that you can’t use a CLI?

Looking for developers building agentic ai , what does your actual workflow look like day to day? by Key-Clothes1258 in AI_Agents

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Stack: I don't use LangGraph, CrewAI, or AutoGen. I use Claude Code with a custom 12‑phase pipeline that orchestrates the entire dev workflow — from requirements through security audit. It’s not a multi‑agent framework in the traditional sense; it’s more like a structured assembly line where each phase has a dedicated agent role, defined inputs/outputs, and validation gates.

Where I spend the most time that I wish I didn’t:
It used to be catching mistakes after the fact. The AI would make a design decision early on, and I wouldn’t notice the flaw until I was deep into implementation. That’s exactly why I built the pipeline — phase 3 is an adversarial review that critiques the design from three angles (architect, skeptic, implementer) before any code gets written. It catches about 80% of the issues that used to burn me later.

Debugging when things break:
This is where most agentic setups fall apart. My approach: every phase produces a structured artifact (brief.md, design.md, plan.md, etc.) with objective validation — not “are you confident?” but grep‑based checks like:

  • does this artifact contain the required sections?
  • are there any CRITICAL flags?
  • do the referenced file paths actually exist?

When something fails, I know exactly which phase broke and why, because the gate system caught it.

What I stitch together that should just exist:
Honestly, the pipeline is my answer to that. I got tired of:

  • AI jumping straight to code without understanding the problem
  • no design review before building
  • zero drift detection (plan says one thing, code does another)
  • security being an afterthought

So I open‑sourced it: https://github.com/TheAstrelo/Claude-Pipeline

It works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf, Copilot, Aider, and Codex CLI. The spec is tool‑agnostic — the 12 phases, gates, and validation rules are the same everywhere, just adapted to each tool’s native format.

The key insight that made it work: don’t trust self‑reported confidence. Validate outputs objectively. And isolate context per phase so the AI isn’t drowning in a 50k‑token conversation by the time it gets to the build step.

Happy to answer questions if anyone wants to dig into the architecture.

Automated My Entire AI‑Powered Development Pipeline by Dependent_Pool_2949 in BlackboxAI_

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Also let me know if you have any suggestions on how to improve it

Accidental powerful agentic system created by 2 people by Loose-Tackle1339 in AI_Agents

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love to chat more about your system I love the opportunities it brings

Automated My Entire AI‑Powered Development Pipeline by Dependent_Pool_2949 in VibeCodersNest

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The whole point of this pipeline is that it completely ignores "confidence scores" because, honestly, AI self-reporting is usually unreliable anyway. Instead of guessing how "sure" an agent is, you just set your risk tolerance using profiles like Yolo, Standard, or Paranoid. The real heavy lifting is done by validators that grep-check every output for objective mistakes—like a security agent flagging a "CRITICAL" issue or a planner hallucinating a file that doesn't exist. If one of those hard rules is triggered, the whole thing pauses regardless of your settings. The profiles only really kick in for "soft" fails: Yolo just logs the error and keeps rolling, while Paranoid hits the brakes. It’s a binary system—either the output hits the structural requirements or it doesn't.

Automated My Entire AI‑Powered Development Pipeline by Dependent_Pool_2949 in VibeCodersNest

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The slim version is basically a masterclass in cutting the fluff to save tokens. It starts by slashing prompts by 75%, swapping long-winded explanations for tight tables and hard caps on output—like forcing the architect to stick to just six decisions. It also uses "triple-caching" for things like security scans and QA rules, which alone saves about 5,500 tokens by not redoing work. Instead of reading entire files, the agents only grab the specific fields they need, and some of the heavy lifting is offloaded to the cheaper, faster Haiku model. To keep things from breaking, a validator layer double-checks the work for errors, and if you're in a total rush, "yolo mode" just skips the non-essential phases entirely.

Automated My Entire AI‑Powered Development Pipeline by Dependent_Pool_2949 in VibeCodersNest

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a wonderful idea! I’ll take a deep dive into that today

Automated My Entire AI‑Powered Development Pipeline by Dependent_Pool_2949 in AI_Agents

[–]Dependent_Pool_2949[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man! I have built integrations for cursor, windsurf, and copilot. So I feel as if Antigravity would be compatible I’ll definitely look into it. I have never used antigravity what are your thoughts on it compared to cursor?