Wizards vs direct AI calls

Overview

Wizards provide structured, multi-step interactive workflows that guide users through complex development tasks. They differ from direct AI calls by offering predefined steps, form-based input collection, and built-in progress tracking.

Feature comparison

Feature Wizards Direct AI calls
Structure Predefined steps with clear progression One-off prompts without guidance
User interaction Form questions with validation Free-form text input only
Progress tracking Built-in step completion and duration metrics Manual tracking required
Cost estimation Predefined ranges (e.g., $0.01-$0.50) No cost prediction
Reusability Registered and shareable across team Ad-hoc, not reusable
Context management Automatic prompt context building Manual context assembly
Error handling Structured error reporting and recovery Basic error messages
Output format Consistent structured results Variable response format

Built-in wizard types

The system includes five specialized wizards:

When to use wizards

Choose wizards when you need:

Examples: code reviews, security audits, release preparation, debugging complex issues.

When to use direct AI calls

Choose direct AI calls when you need:

Examples: quick code explanations, ad-hoc refactoring ideas, experimental feature brainstorming.

Recommendation

Use wizards as your default for development workflows. They provide better user experience, cost predictability, and team consistency. The built-in types (debug, refactor, release prep, security, test generation) cover most common scenarios.

Fall back to direct AI calls only for exploratory work or when you need prompting flexibility that wizards don't support. You can always prototype with direct calls, then create a custom wizard if the workflow proves valuable.

Source files: src/attune/wizards/**