The rise of AI agents has changed how we write code, design systems, and manage projects. But for many developers, the experience still feels chaotic — vague prompts, inconsistent results, and constant restarts when the model “forgets” the context. The good news? A little structure can turn that chaos into clarity. After working extensively with AI models, I’ve found a three-stage process that consistently delivers better, faster, and more reliable results — whether you’re building a quick prototype or a production-grade system. three-stage process The Power of a Structured Prompt A prompt is more than a question — it’s the blueprint your AI agent will follow. Without a plan, you’ll get scattered answers that may not align with your goals. Prompts generally fall into two categories: Plan – high-level strategic guidance
Code – direct, hands-on implementation requests Plan – high-level strategic guidance Plan Code – direct, hands-on implementation requests Code If you’re “vibe coding” — tossing out quick ideas like “Add this feature” — you might get something that works once, but doesn’t hold up over time. For anything beyond quick experiments, you need a process. “Add this feature” The Three-Stage Process for AI Efficiency Here’s the framework I use to transform AI agents from casual helpers into dependable teammates. 1. Define Requirements Before any code is generated, you need a requirements document. This step sets the foundation for everything that follows. AI agents are great at filling in details, but if the foundation is vague, the results will be inconsistent or misaligned with your goals. requirements document A well-structured requirements document answers key questions upfront: What is the scope of the work? (What is being built, and what is not?)
Who is the audience or user? (Which roles, systems, or end users depend on it?)
What are the constraints? (Technical limits, performance expectations, security rules, etc.)
What defines success? (Measurable criteria to know when the requirement is satisfied) What is the scope of the work? (What is being built, and what is not?) What is the scope of the work? Who is the audience or user? (Which roles, systems, or end users depend on it?) Who is the audience or user? What are the constraints? (Technical limits, performance expectations, security rules, etc.) What are the constraints? What defines success? (Measurable criteria to know when the requirement is satisfied) What defines success? Instead of relying on a single paragraph of description, requirements should be written as user stories with acceptance criteria. This format ensures clarity, testability, and alignment. It’s not just helpful for AI agents — it’s the same format effective engineering teams use to keep projects on track. user stories acceptance criteria Why This Matters for AI? Because AI agents don’t inherently “know” your project’s scope or standards. Without structured requirements: They may over-generate (adding unnecessary features).
They may under-generate (missing key pieces).
They may drift (mixing responsibilities that should be separated). They may over-generate (adding unnecessary features). over-generate They may under-generate (missing key pieces). under-generate They may drift (mixing responsibilities that should be separated). drift By framing requirements as user stories (“As a [role], I want [feature], so that [benefit]”) and linking them to acceptance criteria (“WHEN X happens, THEN Y shall result”), you give the AI the same clarity you’d give a junior developer. user stories acceptance criteria This keeps the output focused, consistent, and testable. Here’s how requirements might look in practice: # Requirements Document

## Introduction

This feature involves refactoring the DataType enum to improve separation
of concerns by moving endpoint-related functionality from the DataType
enum to the ServiceMapper utility class. 
Currently, DataType contains both data type definitions and
endpoint-to-schema mapping logic, which violates the single responsibility
principle. This refactoring will centralize all mapping logic in 
ServiceMapper while keeping DataType focused solely on data type 
definitions.

## Requirements

### Requirement 1

**User Story:** As a developer, I want DataType to focus only on data type
definitions, so that the enum has a single clear responsibility.

#### Acceptance Criteria

1. WHEN DataType enum is accessed THEN it SHALL only contain data type 
   information without endpoint mappings
2. WHEN a developer examines DataType THEN it SHALL NOT contain 
   schemaByEndpoint field or endpoint-related methods
3. WHEN DataType is instantiated THEN it SHALL only require dataType 
   parameter

### Requirement 2

**User Story:** As a developer, I want all mapping logic centralized in
ServiceMapper, so that I have a single place to manage all conversions 
and mappings.

#### Acceptance Criteria

1. WHEN ServiceMapper is used THEN it SHALL provide methods to get schema 
   names for data type and endpoint combinations
2. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with getSchemaName THEN it SHALL return the 
   correct schemapath for the given DataType and EndpointType
3. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with getSupportedEndpoints THEN it SHALL 
   return all supported endpoints for a given DataType
4. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with isEndpointSupported THEN it SHALL 
   return true if the endpoint is supported for the data type, false 
   otherwise
5. WHEN invalid combinations are passed to mapper methods THEN they SHALL 
   throw IllegalArgumentException with descriptive messages # Requirements Document

## Introduction

This feature involves refactoring the DataType enum to improve separation
of concerns by moving endpoint-related functionality from the DataType
enum to the ServiceMapper utility class. 
Currently, DataType contains both data type definitions and
endpoint-to-schema mapping logic, which violates the single responsibility
principle. This refactoring will centralize all mapping logic in 
ServiceMapper while keeping DataType focused solely on data type 
definitions.

## Requirements

### Requirement 1

**User Story:** As a developer, I want DataType to focus only on data type
definitions, so that the enum has a single clear responsibility.

#### Acceptance Criteria

1. WHEN DataType enum is accessed THEN it SHALL only contain data type 
   information without endpoint mappings
2. WHEN a developer examines DataType THEN it SHALL NOT contain 
   schemaByEndpoint field or endpoint-related methods
3. WHEN DataType is instantiated THEN it SHALL only require dataType 
   parameter

### Requirement 2

**User Story:** As a developer, I want all mapping logic centralized in
ServiceMapper, so that I have a single place to manage all conversions 
and mappings.

#### Acceptance Criteria

1. WHEN ServiceMapper is used THEN it SHALL provide methods to get schema 
   names for data type and endpoint combinations
2. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with getSchemaName THEN it SHALL return the 
   correct schemapath for the given DataType and EndpointType
3. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with getSupportedEndpoints THEN it SHALL 
   return all supported endpoints for a given DataType
4. WHEN ServiceMapper is called with isEndpointSupported THEN it SHALL 
   return true if the endpoint is supported for the data type, false 
   otherwise
5. WHEN invalid combinations are passed to mapper methods THEN they SHALL 
   throw IllegalArgumentException with descriptive messages 2. Add System Design This is where many developers skip — and end up backtracking later. While a junior developer might start coding right away, a senior engineer knows that a bit of upfront design saves immense time and effort down the line. You can apply this same principle to your AI workflows. upfront design saves immense time Don't just take the AI's first draft of a system design. Treat it like a junior developer's work: a good starting point that needs a thorough review. Ask critical questions: Does this design actually solve the requirements we defined?
Is it technically sound? Are there any obvious flaws?
Does it fit with our existing technology stack and architectural patterns?
What about edge cases, error handling, or security concerns? Does this design actually solve the requirements we defined? Is it technically sound? Are there any obvious flaws? Does it fit with our existing technology stack and architectural patterns? What about edge cases, error handling, or security concerns? A solid design review here prevents wasted hours later, ensuring the subsequent code generation is focused and correct. Here’s an example of a good, structured system design document that an AI can generate and you can review. # Design Document

## Overview

This design outlines the refactoring of DataType enum to move 
endpoint-related functionality to ServiceMapper. The refactoring improves 
separation of concerns by centralizing all mapping logic in a single
utility class while simplifying the DataType enum to focus solely on data 
type definitions.

## Architecture

### Current Architecture Issues
- DataType enum has mixed responsibilities (data types + endpoint mappings)
- Schema mapping logic is scattered between DataType and ServiceMapper
- Endpoint validation logic is embedded in the enum

### Target Architecture
- DataType: Simple enum containing only data type definitions
- ServiceMapper: Centralized utility for all mapping operations including 
  endpoint-to-schema mappings
- Clear separation of concerns with single responsibility principle

## Data Models

### Schema Mapping Structure
The schema mappings will be stored as a static immutable map in 
ServiceMapper:

private static final Map<DataType, Map<EndpointType, String>> 
    SCHEMA_MAPPINGS = Map.of(
    DataType.USER_PROFILE, Map.of(
        EndpointType.WEB_PORTAL, 
            "webModels/userProfile/v2/userProfileSchema",
        EndpointType.MOBILE_APP, 
            "mobile/profile/user/v1/UserProfileData", 
        EndpointType.API_GATEWAY, 
            "api/userProfile/v1/UserProfileCard"
    ),
    DataType.DASHBOARD_WIDGET, Map.of(
        EndpointType.WEB_PORTAL, 
            "webModels/dashboardWidget/v2/dashboardWidget"
    )
);
...

### Exception Scenarios
1. **Null DataType**: "DataType cannot be null"
2. **Null EndpointType**: "EndpointType cannot be null"  
3. **Unsupported Combination**: "EndpointType {endpoint} is not supported 
   for DataType {model}. Supported endpoints: {supportedList}"

### Backward Compatibility
- All error messages will maintain exact same format as current DataType 
  implementation
- Exception types remain unchanged (IllegalArgumentException)
- Calling code error handling logic requires no changes

## Testing Strategy

### Unit Tests for ServiceMapper
1. **getSchemaName() Tests**
   - Valid combinations return correct schema paths
   - Invalid combinations throw IllegalArgumentException
   - Null inputs throw IllegalArgumentException
   - All existing schema mappings are preserved

2. **getSupportedEndpoints() Tests**
   - Returns correct endpoint sets for each data type
   - Null input throws IllegalArgumentException
   - Returned sets are immutable

3. **isEndpointSupported() Tests**
   - Returns true for valid combinations
   - Returns false for invalid combinations  
   - Null inputs throw IllegalArgumentException # Design Document

## Overview

This design outlines the refactoring of DataType enum to move 
endpoint-related functionality to ServiceMapper. The refactoring improves 
separation of concerns by centralizing all mapping logic in a single
utility class while simplifying the DataType enum to focus solely on data 
type definitions.

## Architecture

### Current Architecture Issues
- DataType enum has mixed responsibilities (data types + endpoint mappings)
- Schema mapping logic is scattered between DataType and ServiceMapper
- Endpoint validation logic is embedded in the enum

### Target Architecture
- DataType: Simple enum containing only data type definitions
- ServiceMapper: Centralized utility for all mapping operations including 
  endpoint-to-schema mappings
- Clear separation of concerns with single responsibility principle

## Data Models

### Schema Mapping Structure
The schema mappings will be stored as a static immutable map in 
ServiceMapper:

private static final Map<DataType, Map<EndpointType, String>> 
    SCHEMA_MAPPINGS = Map.of(
    DataType.USER_PROFILE, Map.of(
        EndpointType.WEB_PORTAL, 
            "webModels/userProfile/v2/userProfileSchema",
        EndpointType.MOBILE_APP, 
            "mobile/profile/user/v1/UserProfileData", 
        EndpointType.API_GATEWAY, 
            "api/userProfile/v1/UserProfileCard"
    ),
    DataType.DASHBOARD_WIDGET, Map.of(
        EndpointType.WEB_PORTAL, 
            "webModels/dashboardWidget/v2/dashboardWidget"
    )
);
...

### Exception Scenarios
1. **Null DataType**: "DataType cannot be null"
2. **Null EndpointType**: "EndpointType cannot be null"  
3. **Unsupported Combination**: "EndpointType {endpoint} is not supported 
   for DataType {model}. Supported endpoints: {supportedList}"

### Backward Compatibility
- All error messages will maintain exact same format as current DataType 
  implementation
- Exception types remain unchanged (IllegalArgumentException)
- Calling code error handling logic requires no changes

## Testing Strategy

### Unit Tests for ServiceMapper
1. **getSchemaName() Tests**
   - Valid combinations return correct schema paths
   - Invalid combinations throw IllegalArgumentException
   - Null inputs throw IllegalArgumentException
   - All existing schema mappings are preserved

2. **getSupportedEndpoints() Tests**
   - Returns correct endpoint sets for each data type
   - Null input throws IllegalArgumentException
   - Returned sets are immutable

3. **isEndpointSupported() Tests**
   - Returns true for valid combinations
   - Returns false for invalid combinations  
   - Null inputs throw IllegalArgumentException System design is the bridge between requirements and implementation. The AI can propose a draft, but it’s up to you to enforce principles, clarify responsibilities, and ensure testability. A well-reviewed design makes AI-generated code maintainable, predictable, and far easier to integrate into real projects. bridge between requirements and implementation 3. Generate a Clear Task List Once requirements and design are finalized, the next step is to break the work into a structured implementation plan. This transforms abstract goals into concrete, testable tasks. Each task should define what needs to change, how to verify it, and which requirements it fulfills. This approach makes AI output modular, reviewable, and easy to validate against the original requirements. # Implementation Plan

- [x] 1. Add endpoint mapping methods to ServiceMapper
  - Create static schema mappings constant with all DataType to 
    EndpointType to schema path mappings
  - Implement getSchemaName(DataType, EndpointType) method with null 
    validation and IllegalArgumentException for unsupported combinations
  - Implement getSupportedEndpoints(DataType) method with null validation
  - Implement isEndpointSupported(DataType, EndpointType) method with 
    null validation
  - _Requirements: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5_

- [x] 2. Create comprehensive unit tests for new ServiceMapper methods
  - Write tests for getSchemaName method covering all valid 
    DataType/EndpointType combinations
  - Write tests for getSchemaName method with null inputs and 
    unsupported combinations
  - Write tests for getSupportedEndpoints method for all DataType values
  - Write tests for isEndpointSupported method with valid and invalid 
    combinations
  - Verify all schema paths match exactly with current DataType 
    implementation
  - _Requirements: 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5_
... # Implementation Plan

- [x] 1. Add endpoint mapping methods to ServiceMapper
  - Create static schema mappings constant with all DataType to 
    EndpointType to schema path mappings
  - Implement getSchemaName(DataType, EndpointType) method with null 
    validation and IllegalArgumentException for unsupported combinations
  - Implement getSupportedEndpoints(DataType) method with null validation
  - Implement isEndpointSupported(DataType, EndpointType) method with 
    null validation
  - _Requirements: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5_

- [x] 2. Create comprehensive unit tests for new ServiceMapper methods
  - Write tests for getSchemaName method covering all valid 
    DataType/EndpointType combinations
  - Write tests for getSchemaName method with null inputs and 
    unsupported combinations
  - Write tests for getSupportedEndpoints method for all DataType values
  - Write tests for isEndpointSupported method with valid and invalid 
    combinations
  - Verify all schema paths match exactly with current DataType 
    implementation
  - _Requirements: 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5_
... Defining tasks in this structured way ensures the AI doesn’t just “generate code” but contributes to a coherent, testable implementation. Each step is traceable back to requirements and design, making debugging and validation far easier. Bonus Step: Validation Even the best AI models can produce inaccuracies — or outright fabrications. To safeguard quality, build validation checkpoints into your workflow. At the start of each subtask, ask the AI to: validation checkpoints Review completed work
Compare it against requirements
Flag gaps or inconsistencies Review completed work Compare it against requirements Flag gaps or inconsistencies Yes, it costs more tokens, but it drastically reduces the need for painful manual reviews later. Final Thoughts Working with AI agents doesn’t have to be chaotic. With a structured process — requirements, design, and tasks — you can guide them to produce high-quality, consistent work. Add validation, and you move from hoping for good results to expecting them. hoping expecting The future of development isn’t about replacing humans with AI. It’s about creating workflows where humans and AI complement each other — bringing order to the chaos and building better, faster, and smarter together.

This story contains new, firsthand information uncovered by the writer.

Walkthroughs, tutorials, guides, and tips. This story will teach you how to do something new or how to do something better.

Use This 3-Stage Framework to Work Efficiently with AI Agents

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Javascript File Handling Writing Contest by Filestack & HackerNoon

I Tried Perplexity For a Week, And I Don't Think AI Search Engines Can Replace Google.. Yet

When Distributed Locks Go Wrong—and the Database Saves the Day

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

Javascript File Handling Writing Contest by Filestack & HackerNoon

I Tried Perplexity For a Week, And I Don't Think AI Search Engines Can Replace Google.. Yet

When Distributed Locks Go Wrong—and the Database Saves the Day

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps