I don't have design specs.

Then how do you know if something is architecturally right or wrong?

I don't know what design specs would look like to be honest, as in how extensive and detailed, whether diagrammatic or markdown.

I most often just let it plan to implementation, so it's like:

1. I want something, I write down a bunch of acceptance criteria
2. I let a bot identify gaps and confusing things in my criteria, I clarify
3. When I'm happy with that spec (can literally just be a 2-level markdown list) I let a bot plan the design at high level, break up into stages
4. For each stage, detailed design -> stage design doc
5. When I'm happy with that, "execute the plan"
6. On PR, dispatch a context-free bot for each of:
   • compliance with acceptance
   • Analyzing CI - which includes lint, dep tracking, unit tests + coverage, integration tests (if possible at that point) and security audits
   • ----- synchronize, make decision to keep or throw ----
   • robustness review
   • completeness review
   • analyze all newly written tests for omissions
   • integration issues
   • logic errors
   • ---- synchronize, at this point there are on average 50-80 findings ----
   • Prioritize, build new task list, goto 1.

woefully inadequate

k00b reminded me to not be impatient on spec phase. I spend about 50% of my time in spec, 40% in review, 10% having a beer

I can worry about perfect architecture when it's working end to end with real traction.

I get that btw. I don't understand why you'd need so many agents for a PoC though. Just throw it away.