Choosing Your Track: Quick vs Full DLC Flow

CAT offers two tracks for capturing intent and architecture. Choosing the right one saves time without sacrificing the discipline that makes the DLC valuable.

Decision Guide

graph TD
    A[New work item] --> B{How big is it?}
    B -->|1-3 bolts, single team| C{Is it a brownfield change?}
    B -->|4+ bolts, multi-team, or greenfield| D[Full Flow]
    C -->|Yes - modifying existing system| E[Quick Track]
    C -->|No - new system or component| F{Cross-cutting concerns?}
    F -->|Minimal| E
    F -->|Significant auth, data, infra| D

    E[Quick Track]
    D[Full Flow]

    style E fill:#4CAF50,color:#fff
    style D fill:#2196F3,color:#fff

Quick Track

Use when: The change is small, well-understood, and affects a single team.

Phase	Quick Workflow	Notes
Intent	`cat-quick-intent`	Combines Intent Statement + Intent Brief into one step
Architecture	`cat-quick-arc`	Full ARC Builder focused on what’s changing
Construction	Same as full flow	`cat-bolt-writer` → `cat-bolt-execution`
Validation	Same as full flow	`cat-arc-adherence-check` → `cat-compliance-report`

Quick Track Is Right When

✅ 1–3 bolts maximum
✅ Single team owns the change
✅ Modifying an existing, well-understood system
✅ No new infrastructure or cross-cutting concerns
✅ Bug fixes that need intent documentation
✅ Minor enhancements or configuration changes

Quick Track Examples

Adding a new API endpoint to an existing service
Fixing a validation bug with a clear root cause
Adding a feature flag to an existing feature
Updating an existing report with new columns

Full Flow

Use when: The initiative is multi-feature, spans teams, or involves significant architectural decisions.

Phase	Full Workflow	Sequence
Intent	`cat-intent-statement` → `cat-intent-brief` → `cat-features-create` → `cat-intent-checkpoint`	Separate statement, brief, features, then validation
Architecture	`cat-arc-builder` → `cat-ai-validation` → `cat-arc-checkpoint` → `cat-readiness-check`	Full ARC with AI validation and readiness gates
Construction	`cat-bolt-writer` → `cat-bolt-execution` → `cat-code-review`	Bolts per feature with formal code review
Validation	`cat-arc-adherence-check` → `cat-work-acceptance` → `cat-compliance-report`	Full validation suite

Full Flow Is Right When

✅ 4+ bolts expected
✅ Multiple teams involved
✅ Greenfield system or new major component
✅ Significant security, data, or infrastructure changes
✅ External stakeholder alignment needed
✅ Compliance or audit requirements are elevated

Full Flow Examples

Building a new microservice from scratch
Implementing a payment processing integration
Major refactoring of an authentication system
Migrating data from one store to another

Starting on the Wrong Track?

If your Quick Intent reveals more complexity than expected, the Quick Intent artifact remains valid. Create a full ARC using cat-arc-builder (it can read your existing quick intent) and continue with the full flow.

If you started the full flow and the change is simpler than expected, you can skip intermediate Intent artifacts. The ARC Builder works with whatever intent artifacts exist.

💡 Tip: When in doubt, start with cat-help. It will assess your project’s current state and recommend the appropriate track.

Workflow Comparison

Aspect	Quick Track	Full Flow
Typical elapsed time	30–60 min total	2–4 hours total
User interaction time	10–20 min	45–90 min
Artifacts produced	3–5	8–15
Intent depth	Combined statement + brief	Separate artifacts, richer detail
ARC scope	What’s changing only	Full system architecture
Gate checkpoints	Informal	Formal (Intent Checkpoint, ARC Checkpoint, Readiness Check)
Best for	Bug fixes, enhancements, single-bolt changes	New features, new systems, multi-team work

Research-Only Workflows

Some Intent-phase workflows don’t commit you to either track. Use them anytime to build understanding:

Workflow	Purpose
`cat-market-research`	Competitive and customer research
`cat-domain-research`	Industry and domain deep-dives
`cat-technical-research`	Technology and architecture evaluation
`cat-product-brief`	Product concept documentation
`cat-prfaq`	Working Backwards PRFAQ challenge

These produce research artifacts that can feed into either Quick Intent or full Intent Brief.

See Also: DLC Overview · Workflow Map · Glossary