workflow-mastery

name: workflow-mastery description: > Claude Code workflow mastery for .NET developers. Covers parallel execution with git worktrees, plan mode strategy, verification loops, auto-formatting hooks, permission setup for dotnet CLI, prompting techniques, subagent patterns, and context discipline — token budget management, MCP-first navigation, lazy loading, and subagent isolation — all adapted for the .NET ecosystem. Load this skill when setting up Claude Code for a .NET project, optimizing workflows, running parallel sessions, when context is running low or sessions feel sluggish, when exploring a large codebase efficiently, or when the user mentions "productivity", "workflow", "parallel", "worktree", "plan mode", "permissions", "hooks", "10x", "setup Claude Code", "speed up development", "context", "tokens", "budget", "running out of context", "too many files", or "large codebase". Inspired by tips from Boris Cherny (creator of Claude Code) and the Anthropic team.

Workflow Mastery for .NET

Core Principles

1. Parallel over sequential — Run 3-5 Claude sessions simultaneously using git worktrees. Build a feature in one, fix a bug in another, run tests in a third. The single biggest productivity unlock.
2. Plan then execute — For any non-trivial task, start in plan mode, iterate until the plan is bulletproof, then switch to auto-accept. A good plan means Claude 1-shots the implementation.
3. Verification closes the loop — Give Claude a way to prove its work: dotnet build, dotnet test, get_diagnostics via MCP. This single practice 2-3x the quality of the output.
4. Context is a budget, not a dumping ground — A 200k window fills fast: a typical .cs file is 500-2000 tokens, and 50 file reads can burn half the budget. Spend tokens like sprint capacity — deliberately.
5. Automate the repetitive — If you do it more than once a day, make it a hook, a slash command, or a subagent. Pre-allow safe permissions. Eliminate friction.
6. Compound your knowledge — Every correction becomes a rule in MEMORY.md (see instinct-system skill). Every PR review adds a learning. Over time, Claude's mistake rate drops because your project's knowledge base grows.

Patterns

Parallel Sessions with Git Worktrees

The biggest productivity multiplier. Each worktree gets its own Claude session, its own files, zero conflicts.

# Create worktrees for parallel work
git worktree add ../my-project-feature origin/main
git worktree add ../my-project-bugfix origin/main
git worktree add ../my-project-tests origin/main

# Start Claude in each (separate terminal tabs)
cd ../my-project-feature && claude
cd ../my-project-bugfix && claude
cd ../my-project-tests && claude

Practical .NET workflow:

Tips:

• Name your terminal tabs by task so you never lose track
• Use shell aliases (alias zf='cd ../my-project-feature') for one-keystroke switching
• Enable terminal notifications so you know when a session needs input

Auto-Format Hook for .NET

Catch formatting issues on every file write — eliminates the "CI failed on formatting" loop.

// .claude/settings.json
{
  "hooks": {
    "PostToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": "Write|Edit",
        "hooks": [
          {
            "type": "command",
            "command": "dotnet format --include \"$CLAUDE_FILE_PATH\" --no-restore 2>/dev/null || true"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Why || true: The hook should never block Claude's workflow. If formatting fails (e.g., on a non-C# file), silently continue.

Pre-Allow Safe .NET Permissions

Stop clicking "allow" for every dotnet command. Add these to .claude/settings.json:

{
  "permissions": {
    "allow": [
      "Bash(dotnet build *)",
      "Bash(dotnet test *)",
      "Bash(dotnet run *)",
      "Bash(dotnet ef *)",
      "Bash(dotnet format *)",
      "Bash(dotnet restore *)",
      "Bash(dotnet pack *)",
      "Bash(dotnet tool *)"
    ]
  }
}

Check this into git so the whole team gets frictionless workflows.

Plan Mode Strategy

For any task touching 3+ files or involving architecture decisions:

Step 1: Enter plan mode (Shift+Tab twice)
Step 2: Describe the task with full context
Step 3: Iterate on the plan — challenge assumptions, ask "what about edge cases?"
Step 4: Once the plan is solid, switch to normal mode
Step 5: Claude executes with auto-accept — often 1-shots the implementation

Advanced pattern: Have one Claude write the plan, then spin up a second Claude session to review it as a staff engineer:

"Review this plan as a staff .NET engineer. Challenge every assumption.
What could go wrong? What's missing? What would you do differently?"

When things go sideways: The moment implementation deviates from the plan, STOP. Don't push through. Switch back to plan mode, understand what changed, re-plan, then resume.

Verification Loop for .NET

For the full 7-phase verification pipeline (build, diagnostics, anti-patterns, tests, security, format, diff review) with structured PASS/FAIL reporting, see the verify skill.

Boris's #1 tip: "Give Claude a way to verify its work." The short version: always tell Claude to run dotnet build, dotnet test, get_diagnostics, and dotnet format --verify-no-changes before declaring done. The verify skill has the complete pipeline with short-circuit rules and report templates.

Compounding Knowledge via Corrections

For the full correction capture system — detection, generalization, categorized storage, and periodic audits — see the instinct-system skill. The short version: after every correction, capture a generalized rule in MEMORY.md so the same mistake never recurs.

Prompting Techniques for .NET

Challenge Claude's work:

"Grill me on these changes. Would this pass a staff .NET engineer's code review?
Check for: N+1 queries, missing CancellationToken, exposed domain entities,
missing validation, incorrect service lifetimes."

Demand proof:

"Prove this works. Run the tests, show me the output.
Then diff the API response between main and this branch."

After a mediocre fix:

"Knowing everything you know now, scrap this and implement the elegant solution.
No hacks, no workarounds."

For EF Core migrations:

"Generate the migration, then show me the raw SQL it produces.
I want to verify the migration before applying it."

Subagent Patterns for .NET

Create reusable subagents in .claude/agents/:

<!-- .claude/agents/verify-api.md -->
You are a .NET API verification agent. Your job:
1. Run `dotnet build` and fix any compilation errors
2. Run `dotnet test` and fix any test failures
3. Use `get_diagnostics` to check for warnings
4. Verify all endpoints return proper TypedResults
5. Check that no domain entities leak into API responses
Report: PASS with summary, or FAIL with specific issues.

<!-- .claude/agents/code-simplifier.md -->
You are a code simplification agent for .NET projects.
Review the recent changes and simplify:
- Replace verbose LINQ with simpler alternatives
- Use primary constructors where applicable
- Replace manual null checks with pattern matching
- Consolidate duplicated code
- Remove unnecessary using statements
Do not change behavior. Only simplify.

Use them:

"Run the verify-api agent on my changes before I create the PR."
"Run code-simplifier on the files I just modified."

When to offload vs. stay in main context: see Context Discipline below — subagents are also your context isolation chambers, not just task runners.

Context Discipline

The rules in .claude/rules/agents.md already mandate MCP-first navigation (find_symbol before file reads, get_diagnostics over builds). This section is the strategy layer on top: how to budget, when to offload, and how to recover.

Token Economics

A Roslyn MCP query costs 30-150 tokens; a file read costs 500-2000+. To understand OrderService, four MCP calls (find_symbol → get_public_api → find_references → get_type_hierarchy) cost ~310 tokens; reading the four related files costs ~2900. Then read only the method you'll modify. Reserve full file reads for files you are about to edit.

Subagent Offloading Decision Matrix

OFFLOAD TO A SUBAGENT WHEN:
- Exploring unfamiliar code (> 3 files to read)
- Research requiring docs or multiple files
- Verbose output (test runs, diagnostics, comparisons)
- Any task where the journey is verbose but the answer is concise

STAY IN MAIN CONTEXT WHEN:
- Modifying a file you've already read
- Quick lookups (1-2 MCP queries)
- Work that builds on the ongoing conversation with the user

Ask subagents for compressed answers: "Trace the auth flow from login to token validation. Return numbered steps with file:line references." You get ~300 tokens of findings instead of 15k tokens of raw files.

File Reading Prioritization

PRIORITY 1 — Files you will modify: read fully (exact content needed for edits)
PRIORITY 2 — Contracts you must satisfy: read the interface, skip implementations
PRIORITY 3 — Reference patterns: get_public_api first, read only if insufficient
PRIORITY 4 — General context: subagent summarizes; never read in main context

NEVER READ: entire directories (get_project_graph), test files for context
(get_test_coverage_map), generated files/migrations, configs unless needed

Budget Planning and Recovery

Before a complex task, sketch the spend: understand ~5k (MCP + subagent), plan ~2k, implement ~15k (read targets + write + iterate), verify ~3k — leaving the bulk of the window for conversation.

WARNING SIGNS: 10+ files read, 50+ exchanges, forgetting earlier details,
re-reading files you already saw

RECOVERY: summarize what you know in 5-10 lines → subagents for remaining
exploration → MCP-only lookups → suggest a fresh session if still degraded

LARGE CODEBASES (50+ projects): get_project_graph → narrow to 2-3 relevant
projects → find_symbol for key types → get_public_api for interfaces →
read ONLY files you'll modify → subagents for cross-cutting concerns

Lazy Skill Loading

Don't front-load skills "just in case" — 15 skills at ~300 tokens each is ~4500 tokens spent before any work starts. Load modern-csharp at session start if relevant; pull ef-core, testing, etc. the moment the topic actually arises.

Anti-patterns

Don't Skip Plan Mode for Complex Tasks

// BAD — dive straight into a multi-file refactor
"Refactor the Orders module to use DDD with aggregates and value objects"
*Claude modifies 15 files, misses half the invariants, tangles the migration*

// GOOD — plan first, execute after
"Enter plan mode. I want to refactor the Orders module to use DDD.
Let's plan which files change, what the aggregate boundary is,
how value objects map to EF Core, and what the migration strategy is."

Don't Work in a Single Session When You Could Parallelize

// BAD — sequential work in one session
1. Build feature       (20 min)
2. Write tests         (15 min)
3. Fix formatting      (5 min)
4. Update docs         (10 min)
Total: 50 minutes

// GOOD — parallel worktrees
Worktree 1: Build feature     (20 min)
Worktree 2: Write tests       (15 min, started simultaneously)
Worktree 3: Update docs       (10 min, started simultaneously)
Total: ~20 minutes (wall clock)

Don't Accept the First Solution

// BAD — accept mediocre code
Claude: "Here's the implementation" *generic, works but not great*
You: "Looks good, ship it"

// GOOD — push for quality
Claude: "Here's the implementation"
You: "Would a staff .NET engineer approve this?
      What about the service lifetime? Is this N+1 safe?
      Is there a more elegant way using C# 14 features?"

Don't Load Everything Because the Window Is Large

// BAD — "200k tokens is huge, let's load everything"
Read all 30 files in the Orders module, all 15 test files,
docker-compose.yml, every migration
*80k tokens consumed before writing a single line of code*

// GOOD — minimum viable context
MCP: get_project_graph (solution shape) + find_symbol (locate targets)
Read: the 2-3 files you'll actually modify
Subagent: summarize anything else
*~3k tokens consumed, the rest free for actual work*

Decision Guide