This is great to see. I've now fully embraced long-running agentic workflows with separate plan->generate->evaluate steps, all coordinated by an orchestrator. I've done this using Claude Code alone, which is very easy but costly using Fable alone. I've done this in a team-visible way using Linear and Cyrus https://specstory.com/tutorials/team-based-loop-engineering.

And lately, for cost savings I've been doing this via Claude Code orchestrated workflows that fan out to lower cost Pi.dev Kimi agents https://github.com/jakelevirne/pi-relay.

I think there's a lot to be said for having orchestrated goal-oriented workflows (loops/harnesses) that have their choice of agents. So it's nice to see that principle in play here. And strong goal/outcome definition is critical for success with these long running workflows, so helpful to see SpecFlow methodology baked in to the skill.

I think the biggest thing I've seen over and over as teams try to adopt this type of approach is weak testing/verification. Using agentic development it's very easy to have automated unit and integration testing. But what this approach really demands is acceptance testing and intent verification. Most people I know still do this part by hand, which means the loops can't be as long-running as they ideally would be. Have you thought about a deeper (more deterministic) verification approach, in addition to adversarial review from another agent?

(Note: I'm a SpecStory maintainer but didn't have anything to do with this Claramap Builder project)