← Back to all free guides

Dynamic Workflows
Cheat Sheet

Claude Code can run hundreds of AI agents in parallel on one task. Here’s how to turn it on, when it’s worth the usage and the workflows I’d run first.

You describe a big task in plain English. Claude writes its own plan, spins up as many subagents as the job needs to work in parallel, and has other agents try to poke holes in the results before anything reaches you. You don’t write the plan or manage the agents. You read the final answer.

The example everyone shares: Jarred Sumner used it to port Bun from Zig to Rust. That came to about 750,000 lines of Rust, eleven days from first commit to merge, with 99.8% of the existing test suite passing. (Anthropic: Introducing dynamic workflows)

How To Turn It On

01

Just ask

In any Claude Code session, say "create a workflow to…" and describe the task. The first time a workflow triggers, Claude shows you what’s about to run and asks you to confirm.

02

Or turn on ultracode

Open the effort menu and turn on ultracode. It sets effort to extra high and lets Claude decide on its own when a task is big enough for a workflow. Anthropic also recommends turning on auto mode for the smoothest runs.

03

Check your plan

Dynamic workflows are now generally available on Pro, Max, Ultra, Team and Enterprise. They’re on by default everywhere except Pro. On Pro, type /config and switch them on. Enterprise admins can turn them off in managed settings.

04

Where it works

The Claude Code CLI, the Desktop app and the VS Code extension, plus the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Vertex AI and Microsoft Foundry. If a run gets interrupted, progress is saved, so it picks up where it left off.

Start Small

Anthropic says workflows can use "substantially more tokens than a typical Claude Code session." Make your first run a small, scoped task and watch how much it uses before you point it at anything big.

When It’s Worth It

A workflow earns its usage when the job splits into many similar pieces, you can say what "done" looks like in a checkable way, and the result matters enough to pay for.

5 Workflows To Try

05

Personalized cold outreach

Give it a lead list. One agent per lead reads their public site and recent posts, then writes an email that opens with something real about their business. Verifiers check every hook against its source and kill repeated phrases. You get drafts to review and send yourself.

Cold Outreach Workflow
Create a workflow to write personalized cold outreach for my lead list. INPUTS - Lead list: [attach a CSV with name, company, website or public profile URL] - My business: [one-line description] - Who I help and the outcome: [your ideal customer and result] - My voice: [paste 5 to 10 lines that sound like me] - Goal of the email: [book a call / get a reply / visit a page] PLAN 1. For each lead, one subagent: - Reads their public website, recent posts or recent company news - Picks ONE specific, recent, real detail about them and records the URL it came from - Writes a 4-sentence email that opens with that detail, ties it to a real problem I solve and ends with a soft ask 2. Verifier agents check every email and send back any that fail: - The opening detail is real and matches the source URL - No two emails share an opening phrase - The tone matches my voice lines, with no hype words - The ask is soft and there is no fake urgency 3. Final output: a CSV with name, company, the hook, the source URL, the full email, a fit score from 1 to 10 and a one-line reason, sorted by fit score. Flag the top 20 as "send today". RULES - Use only public information. Do not guess email addresses or invent details. If you can't find a real hook, mark the lead "skip". - Draft only. Do not send anything. - Before you start any subagents, show me the plan and tell me roughly how much usage you expect this to take.

06

Competitor sweep

Drop in your competitor URLs. Agents audit each one in parallel for pricing, positioning and review complaints, verifiers re-check every price and quote, and the final report shows the gaps nobody’s filling.

Competitor Sweep Workflow
Create a workflow to run a competitor sweep and find gaps in my market. INPUTS - Competitors: [list of 10 to 50 competitor URLs] - My business and offer: [one or two sentences] - What I care about most: [e.g. pricing, positioning, offers, customer complaints] PLAN 1. One subagent per competitor. Each one reads the homepage, pricing page and about page, plus public reviews if it can find them, and fills in: who they target, main promise, price points, offer structure, top 3 praised things and top 3 complaints from reviews, each with a source URL. 2. Verifier agents re-check every price and quote against its source and send back anything that doesn't match. Another agent merges duplicate findings across competitors. 3. A final agent writes the synthesis: - A comparison table (one row per competitor) - The 3 biggest gaps nobody is filling, each backed by at least 2 sources - 3 positioning angles I could own, in plain language RULES - Public pages only. If a page is behind a login or paywall, skip it and say so. - Never invent a price or quote. Mark anything you couldn't verify as "unverified". - Show me the plan and your usage estimate before starting any subagents.

07

Customer feedback synthesis

Load 90 days of DMs, call transcripts, reviews and support tickets. The workflow splits the pile across agents, then returns the top 5 things to fix, the top 5 marketing angles and verbatim customer language. It’s the proprietary-data moat on autopilot.

08

Site-wide audit

Have it check every page or blog post for SEO, brand voice and anything that blocks a sale. Verifiers grade severity, and you get one report with rewrites ranked by impact.

09

Back-catalog repurposing

Feed it your last 10 podcasts or long videos. Each agent turns one into short posts in your voice, and verifiers make sure nothing repeats across the batch.

Keep The Usage In Check
Tell It What Verified Means

Verification is what makes this better than running a bunch of prompts at once. One Claude on a big task makes plausible-sounding mistakes. A hundred Claudes make a hundred of them unless something checks. In a workflow, other agents try to refute each result, and the run keeps going until the answers agree.

You get better results when you spell out what checked looks like for your task. Some examples I use:

New to Claude Code? Start with my CLAUDE.md starter template so every agent knows how your project works.