Plan mode is conversational thinking in Cursor or Claude. Lamina produces machine-readable contracts in .lamina/ and walks the live app after implementation.
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
Dimension
Plan mode
Lamina
Primary job
Structured thinking before coding
Behavior contracts + verification
Layer in stack
Exploratory planning in agent UI
Headless product design skill
Primary output
Plan thread, sometimes SPEC.md
run.yaml + implement.md
Writes app source?
Agent may implement from plan
No
Behavior spec (states, flows, permissions)
Narrative when prompted well
Structured states and permissions
Durable in-repo artifact
Often ephemeral unless you commit manually
Always in .lamina/ per run
Post-build verification
Manual QA or ad-hoc agent testing
/lamina-verify persona walks
Repo and stack fit
Built into Cursor, Claude Code
Any agent with skills
Best when
Small features, one actor, no gates
Roles, gates, multi-step flows
When you don't need Lamina
Trivial change with manual QA
Plan mode and your tests cover it
Compose with Lamina?
Explore requirements in plan mode
Formalize with /lamina-design, then implement
Workflow
Lamina vs plan mode: recommended workflow
Step
Plan mode
Lamina
1
Plan feature in Cursor or Claude plan mode
Optional: same exploration in chat
2
Agent implements from plan summary
/lamina-design → committed implement.md
3
You manually click-test critical paths
/lamina-verify → fix.md loop
4
Update plan doc if you remember
Contract in git is source of truth
When to use which
Lamina vs plan mode: when to use each
Situation
Plan mode
Lamina
Rename a component
Plan mode or direct edit
Skip
Guest vs partner permissions
Plan for thinking only
Contract + verify
Spike prototype, throw away
Plan mode
Skip
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.