Use frontier models for analysis and planning, smaller models for execution
When leveraging AI models for software development, match the model's capabilities to the task phase — use the strongest frontier models for analysis and planning, then switch to smaller models for execution.
Analysis and planning phase
Frontier models like GPT-5, Claude 4.1 Opus, or Gemini 2.5 Pro excel at complex tasks that require deep understanding:
Codebase analysis — comprehending architectural patterns, dependencies, and system design
Instruction parsing — understanding nuanced requirements and edge cases
Imeplementation planning — generating comprehensive, step-by-step implementation plans
While these models deliver exceptional quality, they come with higher costs and slower response times. This trade-off is worthwhile during the critical planning phase where accuracy and thoroughness determine project success.
Execution phase
Once you have a detailed plan, transition to smaller, faster models like GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini Flash, or one of the high-quality open alternatives. These models can:
Follow the pre-established plan faithfully
Execute tool calls and file modifications
Complete well-defined implementation tasks
Provide rapid iterations with lower latency
This approach delivers significant cost savings while maintaining execution quality, as the complex reasoning has already been completed.
When to use each approach
Stick with frontier models throughout when:
The task requires continuous complex reasoning
Requirements are ambiguous or evolving
Working with novel architectures or technologies
Debugging intricate, systemic issues
Switch to smaller models when:
Executing a clear, detailed plan
Performing routine code modifications
Running repetitive tasks with established patterns
Speed and cost efficiency are priorities
By strategically deploying models based on task requirements, you achieve the optimal balance of intelligence, speed, and cost-effectiveness in your development workflow. Experiment with different model combinations to find what works best for your specific use cases.
This is a good strategy, thanks for the write up. However, I've had great success sticking with Opus 4.1 in Claude Code all the way for both planning and implementation.
However I do rely on Gemini for code review, it's analysis is excellent.
Occasionally I use also GPT-5.
The idea is to never be stuck with only one provider.
In this non-deterministic world, having many options is key.