Use AI chat when the problem is still open, a roadmap step when the outcome is known and bounded, and an autonomous flow when the goal is clear enough for the system to plan and verify several execution loops without continuous steering.
The right mode depends on uncertainty and risk—not on which interface looks more powerful.
Use open AI chat for discovery
Choose a direct conversation when you need to:
- explore what the real problem is;
- compare product directions;
- understand unfamiliar code;
- diagnose without authorizing a fix;
- challenge assumptions;
- decide what should enter the roadmap.
The result may be a conclusion, a clarified question, or a proposed next step. Do not force an exploratory conversation to pretend it completed an implementation.
Use a roadmap step for bounded delivery
Choose roadmap execution when:
- the project has a defined milestone;
- the user outcome is clear;
- the allowed surface is known;
- completion evidence can be named;
- one coherent run can make meaningful progress.
A roadmap step carries the business reason and completion criteria into the agent run. The agent can inspect implementation details, but the milestone prevents technical discovery from silently replacing the user goal.
Use autonomous flow for multi-loop execution
Choose Flow when:
- the end goal is clear;
- several plan, build, verify, and repair loops may be needed;
- evidence can drive the next loop;
- ordinary failures can be corrected without changing product direction;
- only genuine authorization points need user attention.
A good Flow does not ask the user to configure internal roles or state transitions. The user supplies the goal; the system absorbs planning, execution, verification, and continuation.
A quick decision guide
The answer is still unclear
Use Chat.
The answer is clear, but one milestone needs work
Use Roadmap Step.
The answer and boundaries are clear, and the work may require several verified iterations
Use Flow.
The work changes pricing, deletes data, sends external messages, or writes production state
Use the appropriate mode, but require explicit authorization at the risky action.
Do not use autonomy to hide uncertainty
Autonomous execution is not a substitute for product decisions. Stop when different options would materially change:
- the target user;
- public behavior;
- price or entitlement;
- data ownership;
- architecture boundary;
- irreversible external state.
The system should resolve implementation obstacles by itself, but it should not choose a different product on the user's behalf.
Preserve one project loop
These modes should not create separate truths.
- Chat can clarify or propose.
- Roadmap records durable product direction.
- Flow executes toward a clear goal.
- Evidence updates the verified project state.
- Learning can revise the next roadmap step.
The project remains continuous even when the conversation surface changes.
Examples
“I do not know why onboarding users leave”
Start with Chat to frame hypotheses and identify missing evidence.
“Reduce onboarding to three verified steps”
Use a Roadmap Step with behavior, browser, and analytics evidence.
“Audit, implement, test, and repair the onboarding flow until the acceptance checks pass”
Use Flow if the boundaries and authorization are already clear.
“Delete old accounts after migration”
No mode should proceed without the exact target list, recovery evidence, and explicit approval.
Warning signs you chose the wrong mode
- Chat keeps producing implementation fragments with no milestone.
- A roadmap step is used for broad product exploration.
- Flow repeatedly asks the user to choose internal implementation details.
- The system continues autonomously after the user outcome changed.
- Three modes create three conflicting task states.
The core principle
Match the execution mode to the clarity of the outcome. Preserve openness while discovering, use a roadmap to bound delivery, and use autonomous flow only when evidence can safely guide the work to completion.