Different jobs, same workflow
Claude Code shines at generating and refactoring code from natural-language instructions. But natural-language instructions drift. Requirements shift between messages. Edge cases evaporate. The agent doesn't know your product's vocabulary until you type it, again, next session.
Executable fixes that upstream. It's a spec-driven development workflow: you define capabilities, jobs, and behaviour once, in a structured spec that lives beyond a single chat.
How Executable pairs with Claude Code
Claude Code's weakness isn't reasoning — it's memory. Every session starts cold. The constraint you explained on Tuesday, the edge case you agreed to handle, the reason a field is optional: none of it survives the context window, so you re-explain it, slightly differently, and the implementation drifts a little each time.
Executable exposes your spec through an MCP endpoint, so Claude Code pulls the capability, its jobs-to-be-done context, and its Given/When/Then scenarios directly as structured context at the start of every session. Nothing is re-typed and nothing is forgotten. The scenarios also generate the tests, so passing means matching intent rather than matching whatever was remembered.
What Executable is not
- Not a coding agent. Claude Code writes code better than we would.
- Not a project-management tool. Tickets are downstream of the spec, not the spec itself.
- Not a product-strategy tool. You still decide what to build; we make sure it gets built as intended.