This is what I’ve been thinking about recently.
Babysitting one process, but giving it all of my attention[1] can lead to rapid progress.
Pushing forward multiple efforts simultaneously can lead to rapid progress if code is largely unrelated and you keep a sharp eye on branching and commits.
However, it’s remarkably easy to make a mistake and be enamored by how well the AI can use git to fix your mistake.
But the cost ends up being adherence to it, specification or architecture, or being distracted into scope creep.
The new scope might be useful for factoring, but that is also the kind of thing that interfere with your Main processor trying to handle.
And it’s remarkably easy to get lost in the state when you have to manage validation well.
The more mature the project and more intense the expectation of scm hygiene, the more punitive small mistakes can become.
It is not really a problem in my process prior to Claude code, which was almost entirely turned based chat.
I still have configured fairly complex and detailed session workflows to preserve state amidst the regular threat of auto compact.
Even I even have documentation, describing a plan to migrate into git worktrees myself, but haven’t been able to justify the move, as I continue to learn to be productive with a single main session focus.
[1] I don’t know if there is such a thing as constant focus on a complex genetic programming effort because of the delays involved. You can stare at the funny verbs anthropic picks while the tokens go brrrr for only so long.