Skip to main content

Execution Modes

VibeGov works best when teams stop treating all work as the same kind of work.

A review pass and a delivery pass are not interchangeable. They need different outputs, different evidence, and different completion criteria.

TLDR​

Use this page when you need to decide what kind of work is being done before someone claims progress or completion.

Minimum takeaway:

  • Development changes reality and must end with delivery evidence.
  • Exploration discovers reality and should create findings, issues, specs, or confidence limits.
  • Feedback Intake converts human feedback into ready backlog/spec work without implementing by default.

Next action:

The two operating modes​

VibeGov still keeps two primary operating modes: Exploration and Development.

But there are also named work shapes that sit around or inside those modes.

One of the most important is Feedback Intake: the governed work shape used inside the Human Feedback Loop when the goal is to convert human feedback into ready backlog/spec work without implementing immediately.

1) Exploration mode​

Use Exploration mode when the goal is discovery, review, judgment, or backlog hydration on non-delivery surfaces.

Typical use-cases:

  • route/page review
  • workflow audit
  • end-user validation
  • backlog hydration
  • drift detection
  • UI/spec/issue exploration
  • exploratory report generation
  • planner-style scoping of a review surface
  • evaluator-style judgment of exploratory artifacts or coverage

Expected outputs:

  • scenario classifications
  • evidence notes
  • focused issues
  • spec links or SPEC_GAP
  • planned traceability/test follow-up
  • coverage/confidence notes

What not to do:

  • claim a fix was delivered
  • blur discovery into Development
  • report findings without artifacts

2) Development mode​

Use Development mode when the goal is to change behavior and carry that change through release readiness and shipping.

Typical use-cases:

  • feature delivery
  • bug fix
  • refactor with defined acceptance criteria
  • issue-linked quality improvement
  • build/release gate maintenance
  • pre-release and post-deploy verification for a candidate artifact

Expected outputs:

  • issue-to-requirement binding
  • scoped code/doc/system changes
  • validation evidence
  • updated traceability
  • commit or artifact references
  • release-readiness or shipping evidence when applicable

What not to do:

  • skip verification because exploratory work already happened
  • collapse multiple unrelated findings into one vague change
  • claim done without proof

Feedback Intake sits beside the primary modes​

Feedback Intake is not just vague planning and not a full delivery mode.

It is the work shape for:

  • capturing human feedback on work that already exists
  • checking for existing related issues/specs
  • splitting broad feedback into the right governed work units
  • tightening acceptance criteria or priority/dependency notes
  • stopping before implementation unless the human explicitly switches to Development

Expected outputs:

  • issue creation or updates
  • spec links or SPEC_GAP
  • split/scoped follow-up work units
  • readiness, blocker, and dependency notes
  • recommended execution order

What not to do:

  • claim the product change was delivered
  • hide the work as a chat-only plan
  • blur feedback capture into implementation by default

Evaluation lives inside a mode​

Evaluation is not a third peer mode. It is a bounded judgment pattern used inside Exploration or Development when explicit criteria-based review is needed.

In practice, exploratory work will often use planner and evaluator roles heavily. That does not make evaluation a separate mode. It means Exploration can contain planning and judgment activity when the work is still non-delivery discovery.

Typical evaluation work includes:

  • judging a bounded artifact against a rubric
  • running a skeptical reviewer pass over a scoped result
  • deciding whether a report, draft, or validator result satisfies an explicit contract

What evaluation does not mean:

  • replacing Exploration when the goal is surface discovery
  • replacing Development evidence when behavior changed
  • creating a vague "reviewed" state with no criteria or verdict

Release verification lives inside Development​

Release verification is not a third peer mode. It is part of Development's delivery path.

This is also where loops and modes meet cleanly:

  • release verification usually sits inside the Build Loop,
  • exploratory review usually sits inside the Exploratory Loop,
  • feedback intake usually sits inside the Human Feedback Loop,
  • and human feedback can reshape either one without becoming a separate execution mode.

Typical release-verification work includes:

  • confirming the build succeeded
  • validating packaging/startup/bootstrap behavior
  • checking deployment state
  • confirming the right version/build is live
  • running critical-route smoke checks in the target environment
  • stopping release creation or promotion if required gates fail

Why explicit mode selection matters​

Without explicit mode selection, teams produce confusing status:

  • exploratory notes presented as development proof
  • evaluation language used where no real criteria/verdict exists
  • development updates without enough evidence
  • release confidence claimed from isolated ticket checks instead of encoded delivery gates

Mode selection keeps the workflow honest.

Mode-appropriate evidence​

Exploratory evidence​

  • what was reviewed
  • preconditions
  • scenario outcomes
  • expected vs actual notes
  • artifact links created

Feedback Intake evidence​

  • feedback source or reviewed target identified
  • issue IDs created or updated
  • spec binding or SPEC_GAP
  • split/dedupe decisions made visible
  • readiness, blocker, or dependency notes captured
  • no false implication that implementation already happened

Development evidence​

  • requirement IDs
  • commands/checks/tests run
  • pass/fail results
  • commit/artifact links
  • residual risk notes
  • release-readiness or shipping evidence when applicable

For copyable weak-vs-strong reporting patterns, use Evidence Examples.

Fast rule of thumb​

Ask one question before you start:

Am I trying to discover reality, turn human feedback into ready work, or change reality and ship it safely?

That answer should determine the work shape.