Full Claude Code Operation System for 0–1. MIT Licenced
How It Works
AI-assisted product work often stalls. Sessions create talk, documents, and artefacts — but no real progress. Conductor moves in one direction: into shipping value.
Is there a real opportunity here? Nothing advances without a one-sentence outcome and a framed opportunity.
What exactly are we solving, for whom? Stage 1 scoped into vertical slices. Later items written forward.
Make → review → refine → approve. Wireframe or prototype signed off before any production code is written.
PM + design + build alignment. Locks the design contract Build is held against. Edge cases and criteria confirmed.
Plan → build → review → approve. One feature at a time. Contract changes named: cosmetic vs structural.
Deploy, communicate, hand off. Later items surfaced. Session closed or continued into Stage 2.
Comparison
Conductor isn't a replacement — it's a PM operating system that sits alongside your workflow, bringing structure to chaos.
| Conductor | GSD | BMAD | Superpowers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core philosophy | Validate the opportunity first, then design, then build | Ship fast, learn from output | Document everything upfront, then build | Test-first, edge-case extraction |
| Entry point | Idea → opportunity framing → everything else | Idea → MVP immediately | Idea → docs → sprint → build | Idea → test suite → build |
| Design phase | Dedicated loop + Three Amigos gate | None explicit | Captured in docs | None explicit |
| Human role | Claude proposes, human decides at every step | Sets direction, approves output | Owns docs, delegates build | Confirms edge cases |
| Best for | PM-led product work with fuzzy starting points | Unproven ideas, MVPs | Stable systems, known requirements | High-stakes agentic actions |
| PM fit | Native — designed for PMs | Moderate | Low — assumes dev literacy | Low — test-oriented |
vs GSD
GSD is better when you are the user — you're scratching your own itch and you know the problem exists. Conductor is better when the user isn't you, or when the problem is assumed rather than observed. Both tolerate ambiguity at entry; they diverge on whether to challenge the opportunity before building.
vs BMAD
BMAD is better for stable, well-understood systems where requirements are known upfront. Conductor is better when design decisions will evolve during execution. Gates distribute the alignment cost progressively — rather than paying it all before a single line of code.
vs Superpowers
Superpowers is a powerful build-phase tool once you know what to build. Conductor handles the earlier question of whether to build it at all. They're not mutually exclusive — use Conductor through Three Amigos, then apply Superpowers rigour in the Build loop.
Each phase is powered by a set of Claude Code skills — structured prompts that guide specific tasks from discovery to delivery.
