We built a process layer on top of Claude Code that handles context and coordination across tasks

Over the past year, we have been using a variety of AI coding tools across different project teams, including Claude Code. We saw that the individual productivity went up but those gains didn't compound across the teams as much as we were hoping for. We figured that the reason was that much of the process around coding was still largely the same, all the way from sprint planning to standups to PR reviews (with some AI sprinkled). The losses were particularly stark at handoff points. Context gets lost at each handoff and has to be reconstructed over and over again. It starts to show a copy of a copy effect, causing quiet drift and maintenance issues that erode the initial productivity gains. So we built a layer on top that handles context and coordination across tasks. Each step in the engineering process declares what it reads and what it produces. The architecture review consumes the spec, produces an ADR and module guidance. The dev task receives that ADR plus the pitfalls file for the modules it touches. The reviewer gets the spec, the ADR, and the diff. Each session gets dispatched with exactly the right context loaded. This allows the project's context to grow over time, and for the right pieces of the context to be made available to the right tasks, without requiring the engineers to work harder and harder to make that happen. This in turn has allowed us to rely on this process layer for better quality code as opposed to the individual discipline of engineers. We do still use Claude Code directly for simpler tasks since the overhead math on smaller spikes is different. Anyone else thinking about this as a process/coordination problem rather than a tools problem?