Commit 0d2767b

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# 002 Discussion - Pair Programming Workflow
+
+## Review Feedback and Clarifications
+
+After implementing the first 5 tasks using this workflow, here are observations and recommendations:
+
+## What's Working Well
+
+### Task Structure
+- The detailed task documents in `docs/todo/` provide excellent clarity and tracking
+- Breaking tasks into small, manageable pieces enables steady progress
+- Clear acceptance criteria make verification straightforward
+- Implementation logs provide valuable historical context
+
+### Git Workflow
+- Branch-per-task approach keeps changes organized and isolated
+- Git commit format with task document references creates good traceability
+- Human verification step catches issues before they compound
+
+### Documentation Updates
+- RFD updates capture lessons learned effectively
+- CLAUDE.md grows organically with useful project-specific information
+
+## Areas for Improvement
+
+### Workflow Efficiency
+1. **Git Branch Creation**: Currently requires manual human action for each task. Consider documenting when Claude should remind vs. when human should proactively create.
+
+2. **Task Document Updates**: Some redundancy between task documents and project_plan.md status tracking. Could streamline.
+
+3. **Verification Process**: The verification step works well but could benefit from more specific testing scripts or commands.
+
+### Documentation Consistency
+1. **Commit Message Format**: Current format has inconsistency in the README - shows reference line in two different positions. Should standardize.
+
+2. **Task Template**: Could benefit from more specific guidance on when to create sub-tasks vs. keeping tasks atomic.
+
+## Questions for Discussion
+
+### Process Questions
+1. **Task Complexity**: What's the ideal size for a task? Current 1.1-1.5 felt right, but as we get into more complex features, should we break them down further?
+
+2. **Testing Strategy**: Should we establish more formal testing requirements in the task template? Current manual verification works but may not scale.
+
+3. **Error Handling**: What happens when a task needs significant rework? Current process assumes linear progression.
+
+### Technical Questions
+1. **Branch Management**: Should we establish rules for when to merge branches back to main vs. keeping them for reference?
+
+2. **Documentation Maintenance**: As the project grows, how do we keep CLAUDE.md from becoming unwieldy?
+
+3. **RFD Creation**: When should new RFDs be created vs. updating existing ones?
+
+## Recommendations
+
+### Immediate Improvements
+1. **Standardize commit format**: Fix the inconsistency in commit message structure in README
+2. **Add branch verification**: Enhance the git branch checking to be more robust
+3. **Create testing guidelines**: Add section to task template about testing expectations
+
+### Future Considerations
+1. **Automation opportunities**: Some parts of the workflow could be scripted (branch creation, status updates)
+2. **Integration testing**: As we build more features, consider how integration testing fits into the workflow
+3. **Performance tracking**: Consider adding metrics for task completion time, defect rates, etc.
+
+## Implementation Experience Notes
+
+The workflow successfully guided implementation of the foundational web architecture. The combination of detailed planning, incremental implementation, and human verification created high confidence in the results. The git history is clean and traceable, making it easy to understand how the codebase evolved.
+
+The task-driven approach worked particularly well for the buylater.email project because it forced clear thinking about the user workflow before implementation.
+
+---
+
+*This discussion document should be updated as we gain more experience with the workflow and discover additional improvements.*