CW-201c · Module 1

Sequential Team Workflows

4 min read

Most team Claude workflows are sequential: one person does research, another writes the deliverable, a third does QA. The relay race model. Each person takes the baton from the previous person, runs their leg, and passes it forward. The context bridge is the baton.

The sequential workflow has three variants, and choosing the right one depends on your team's structure. Variant one: specialist chain. Each person owns a specific stage — Alice always does research, Bob always writes proposals, Carol always does QA. This variant produces the most consistent output because each person refines their stage's skills and prompts over time. Alice's research skill gets better every week. Bob's proposal template tightens. Carol's QA checklist grows more comprehensive.

Variant two: parallel convergence. Two or more people work simultaneously on different aspects, then their outputs converge. Alice researches the prospect while Bob researches the competitive landscape. Both produce context bridges. Carol receives both bridges and writes the proposal that synthesizes both research streams. This variant is faster but requires a stronger convergence step — Carol's Claude session needs to reconcile two independent research streams that may contain contradictions.

Variant three: iterative handoff. The work bounces between two people multiple times. Alice writes a draft, Bob reviews it, Alice revises based on Bob's feedback, Bob reviews again. Each handoff carries a context bridge, but the bridges get progressively shorter because the accumulated context is in the document itself. By the third iteration, the handoff is just: "REVISED: addressed items 2, 4, and 5 from your review. Item 3 was not addressed because [reason]. Please review again."

Do This

  • Choose a workflow variant that matches your team structure and deadline
  • Use context bridges at every handoff point — even between iterations of the same document
  • Let the producing session's Claude generate the bridge — it has the full context
  • Include rejected alternatives in the bridge — they prevent the next person from re-treading

Avoid This

  • Pass raw conversation exports between team members — they are too noisy to be useful
  • Assume the receiving person knows the context — they do not, and neither does their Claude session
  • Skip the bridge for "quick" handoffs — the 2 minutes to generate a bridge saves 15 minutes of re-establishing context
  • Use the same workflow variant for every project — a 2-day sprint needs a different structure than a 2-week engagement