I built a phase-driven workflow for AI-assisted development — looking for feedback
I’ve been experimenting with AI-assisted development on a few personal projects, and I kept running into the same issue: the larger the planning surface became, the more assumptions I had to make and keep in my head.
So I built Mano.
Mano is a fast feedback loop for AI-assisted development:
- Define what is needed for the current phase
- Build it
- Review what was learned or missed
- Adjust the backlog
- Define the next phase and repeat
Specs, implementation rules, and UX guidance are optional inputs rather than mandatory artefacts for every phase.
The goal is not to remove planning. It is to keep the planning horizon small enough that assumptions can be tested before they spread across many stories or implementation tasks.
The human approves the phase scope and direction. The agent helps plan and execute but does not autonomously decide the roadmap.
I’ve tested Mano across a few personal projects, and it is now working well enough for me to make it public.
I’d especially value feedback on:
- whether the phase-driven distinction is clear
- whether this solves a real problem or simply moves the planning effort elsewhere;
- where do you think the workflow would break on larger projects