I’m using Claude code dynamic workflow like this. I tell Fable to use a workflow. He is the planner, orchestrator and reviewer. Opus agents are implementers. Works unbelievably well.
I do the same, but delegate to codex instead via the /smux skill. It's expensive, but I get one long-running Claude context window and one frequently compacting codex, and this saves me from needing to re-gather context all the time.
Per the OP's technique, I'll use Fable for intensive planning moments, then switch back to opus when things are going well.
It's literally all there is to it. Write your prompt normally. then, at the last paragraph, you write:
Use a workflow to implement this. You (Fable) are the orchestrator, planner and reviewer. Opus agents are implementers.
That's all there's to it. it will create the dynamic workflow - has a nice interface native to Claude Code - and do all the coordination to deliver what you asked.
In many languages that’s the only way to express that since there is no “it”. It doesn’t mean speakers of such languages anthropofy everything and I think that’s the case here.
Per the OP's technique, I'll use Fable for intensive planning moments, then switch back to opus when things are going well.