Should you plan with one AI and build with another?
Short answer
Yes. I use a planning chat as my product manager and a coding agent as the developer. For big builds, one model writes the plan, ChatGPT's top model on high effort redlines it, and cheaper models do the searching and building. Chats forget; coding tools keep files, so the plan has to land there.
Imagine a developer on your right and a genius product manager on your left. I go to the product manager, ask what I should tell the developer, then copy and paste it over. It's almost silly, because it's the same AI. It works anyway.
"I use Claude Chat as my assistant, my genius product manager, and Claude Code as the actual developer."
Why split planning from building?
- Memory. In the chat it will lose stuff. You come back a day later and it says it doesn't have it. Pushing the plan into the coding tool means everything gets saved in files.
- Cost. The top model plans. A cheaper model implements. I've heard other builders land on the same split.
How do I get a second opinion on a big plan?
For large builds, I have one model write a full, detailed plan, then ask ChatGPT's top model, on high effort, to redline it before anything gets built. I don't want to burn a ton of tokens building until we know the approach will work. Then cheaper models handle the searching and building.
What should the planner do that I usually don't?
- Split my ideas into separate tracks. I get really excited about solving multiple problems at once. A smart AI should break that burst into separate builds automatically.
- Ask me questions. I'd rather lean on the AI's view of the code than dictate how to do it.
- Keep going around blockers. Build what can be built and set aside anything that needs my approval.
How does this work with a team?
The same handoff, one level up. When a teammate who also uses AI brings me something, the rule is: do the first two steps yourself, get it to basically done, then give me a prompt. Tell the AI you want to give me something I only have to copy and paste to solve the problem.
Keep one coding tool per project while you do this. GitHub is the source of truth, and Codex and Claude Code both just change it, but switching tools mid-project brings back the context problems you were trying to avoid.
The planning step is meta-prompting at a bigger scale: ask for the instructions before you ask for the work.
Answered by TJ Larkin. From client calls, partner calls and build sessions in 2026. Last updated .