Use Cases

This page focuses on high-ROI, real-world CCCC workflows.

How to Read This Page

Each scenario includes:

• Goal
• Minimal setup
• Execution flow
• Success criteria
• Common failure points

Use Case 1: Builder + Reviewer Pair

Goal

Increase delivery quality without adding human review bottlenecks.

Minimal Setup

cd /path/to/repo
cccc attach .
cccc setup --runtime claude
cccc setup --runtime codex
cccc actor add builder --runtime claude
cccc actor add reviewer --runtime codex
cccc group start

Execution Flow

1. Send implementation task to @builder.
2. Send review criteria to @reviewer (bug risk, regression risk, tests).
3. Require @builder to reply with changed files + rationale.
4. Require @reviewer to reply with findings (severity + evidence).
5. Use human decision for final merge.

Success Criteria

• Faster implementation feedback loop.
• Fewer missed regressions.
• Review output is actionable, not generic.

Common Failure Points

• Task scope too broad.
• Reviewer lacks explicit acceptance criteria.
• Team skips obligation semantics (reply_required) for critical asks.

Use Case 2: Foreman-Led Multi-Agent Delivery

Goal

Split one medium project into parallel tracks while keeping alignment.

Minimal Setup

cccc actor add foreman --runtime claude
cccc actor add frontend --runtime codex
cccc actor add backend --runtime gemini
cccc actor add qa --runtime copilot
cccc group start

Execution Flow

1. Foreman defines shared goal in Context (vision, sketch, milestones).
2. Assign focused tasks via direct recipients.
3. Enforce checkpoint reminders through Automation rules.
4. Foreman integrates and resolves conflicts.
5. QA agent validates key acceptance criteria before handoff.

Success Criteria

• Parallel execution without major rework churn.
• Clear ownership per track.
• Traceable decision history in ledger.

Common Failure Points

• Missing shared architecture baseline.
• Agents editing same surfaces without ownership rules.
• No explicit integration checkpoints.

Use Case 3: Mobile Ops with IM Bridge

Goal

Operate long-running groups from phone while keeping a reliable audit trail.

Minimal Setup

cccc im set telegram --token-env TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN
cccc im start

Then /subscribe in your IM chat.

Execution Flow

1. Receive progress/error notifications in IM.
2. Send escalation commands to @foreman from mobile.
3. Switch to Web UI for deep debugging only when needed.
4. Keep all critical decisions in CCCC messages (not only in IM thread).

Success Criteria

• You can intervene without laptop access.
• Critical context remains in ledger.
• Downtime is reduced for overnight or offsite ops.

Common Failure Points

• Exposing Web UI without proper token/gateway.
• Using IM as the only source of truth.
• No restart/recovery playbook.

Use Case 4: Repeatable Agent Benchmark Harness

Goal

Run comparable multi-agent sessions with stable logging and replayability.

Minimal Setup

1. Define fixed task prompts and evaluation criteria.
2. Use same group template and runtime setup per run.
3. Keep automation policies deterministic.

Execution Flow

1. Create baseline group/template.
2. Run multiple sessions with different runtime combinations.
3. Collect ledger and terminal evidence.
4. Evaluate outcome quality and operational stability.

Success Criteria

• Comparable runs with low setup variance.
• Reproducible evidence set (ledger, state artifacts, logs).
• Clear model/runtime tradeoff signals.

Common Failure Points

• Hidden prompt drift between runs.
• Uncontrolled environment differences.
• Missing run metadata in messages.

Recommended Next Reads

• docs/guide/operations.md
• docs/reference/positioning.md
• docs/reference/features.md