Skip to main content

Lamina vs plan mode

Plan mode is conversational thinking in Cursor or Claude. Lamina produces machine-readable contracts in .lamina/ and walks the live app after implementation.

Curated by Aryan Iyappan · Updated 2026-07-13

Who this comparison is for

You are in the right place if

  • You plan features well but specs drift after the agent implements.
  • You want permission matrices and persona verification, not just a plan thread.
  • Plan mode produced a great SPEC.md that nobody updated after the first PR.
  • You asked the agent to plan checkout and still shipped pay-before-verify.

Context

Plan mode is the default workflow for thoughtful AI development. It is genuinely useful. The gap is durability and verification: plans live in chat or ad-hoc markdown, and nothing walks the deployed UI as guest vs partner unless you do it manually. Lamina does not replace thinking; it formalizes behavior output and adds a verify loop your plan thread does not provide.

Common situations

Concrete cases from AI-shipping workflows. Each shows what the alternative handles and where a behavior contract helps.

Plan mode checkout design, implementation drifts

Situation
You spent twenty minutes in plan mode on guest checkout. Agent implemented from memory. Hold timer and email gate were dropped in the second PR.
What Plan mode does
Plan mode captured intent in conversation and maybe a SPEC.md snippet.
What Lamina adds
run.yaml committed in git. implement.md is the handoff. verify catches drift on staging.
Takeaway
Plans without committed contracts drift.

Single-actor bug fix with clear scope

Situation
Fix a typo on settings label. No new states or permissions.
What Plan mode does
Plan mode or direct agent prompt is enough.
What Lamina adds
Overhead not justified. Skip Lamina.
Takeaway
Small scope: plan mode alone is fine.

Multi-role partner onboarding

Situation
Plan mode listed onboarding steps in prose. Agent built a single form; partner and admin capabilities conflated.
What Plan mode does
Narrative plan with step list.
What Lamina adds
Actor permissions, stepped gates, submit-for-review rules, persona verify.
Takeaway
Multi-actor features need machine-readable specs.

Comparison

Lamina vs plan mode and ad-hoc prompts
DimensionPlan modeLamina
Primary jobStructured thinking before codingBehavior contracts + verification
Layer in stackExploratory planning in agent UIHeadless product design skill
Primary outputPlan thread, sometimes SPEC.mdrun.yaml + implement.md
Writes app source?Agent may implement from planNo
Behavior spec (states, flows, permissions)Narrative when prompted wellStructured states and permissions
Durable in-repo artifactOften ephemeral unless you commit manuallyAlways in .lamina/ per run
Post-build verificationManual QA or ad-hoc agent testing/lamina-verify persona walks
Repo and stack fitBuilt into Cursor, Claude CodeAny agent with skills
Best whenSmall features, one actor, no gatesRoles, gates, multi-step flows
When you don't need LaminaTrivial change with manual QAPlan mode and your tests cover it
Compose with Lamina?Explore requirements in plan modeFormalize with /lamina-design, then implement

Workflow

Lamina vs plan mode: recommended workflow
StepPlan modeLamina
1Plan feature in Cursor or Claude plan modeOptional: same exploration in chat
2Agent implements from plan summary/lamina-design → committed implement.md
3You manually click-test critical paths/lamina-verify → fix.md loop
4Update plan doc if you rememberContract in git is source of truth

When to use which

Lamina vs plan mode: when to use each
SituationPlan modeLamina
Rename a componentPlan mode or direct editSkip
Guest vs partner permissionsPlan for thinking onlyContract + verify
Spike prototype, throw awayPlan modeSkip

Worked example

Partner onboarding gate before submit. Plan mode can list onboarding steps in prose. Lamina specs submit locked until prerequisites complete and verify walks the partner path. HavenStay showed a complete form on step one when only planning was used.

HavenStay demo walkthrough

Frequently asked questions

Does Lamina replace plan mode?

No. Plan in plan mode, then run /lamina-design when behavior must survive implementation.

I already commit SPEC.md from plan mode. Is that enough?

If your SPEC.md stays accurate, tests cover flows, and you never drift, you may not need Lamina. Many teams drift without a verify loop.

Does this apply to Cursor plan mode and Claude Code?

Yes. The comparison is planning as a modality vs durable behavior contracts, regardless of vendor.

Comparisons map stack layers, repo artifacts, and HavenStay demo examples. Updated when major tools change positioning.

Install in one command.

A headless product-design skill for your AI coding agent. Then run the design → implement → verify loop on your next feature.

Apache-2.0 · open source. Star on GitHub if Lamina saves you a loop.

npx skills install aryaniyaps/lamina

Works with your coding agent

  • Cursor
  • Claude Code
  • Codex
  • Gemini
  • Pi
  • and more