This catalogue describes branching strategies for different team sizes and automation levels.
| Flow | Automation | Team Size | Release Cycle | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic Git Flows | 100% | Any | Continuous | AI-driven development |
| Agentic Team Flow | ~80% | 3-10 | Weekly | Human + AI collaboration |
| Simplified GitFlow | Manual | 2-5 | Monthly | Small teams, full control |
| Vendor Fork Flow | ~60% | Any | Upstream-tied | Forked external dependencies |
Full automation — AI agents manage the entire development lifecycle autonomously.
Hybrid workflow — Humans make decisions, agents execute.
Traditional approach — Manual branching for small teams.
External dependency tracking — Maintain forks of vendor projects (OpenWebUI, Supabase, n8n).
| Aspect | Agentic Flows | Team Flow | Simplified | Vendor Fork |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automation | 100% | ~80% | 0% | ~60% |
| Team Size | Any | 3-10 | 2-5 | Any |
| Release Cadence | Continuous | Weekly | Monthly | Upstream-tied |
| Complexity | High | Medium | Low | High |
| Learning Curve | Steep | Moderate | Easy | Moderate |
| CI/CD Required | Yes | Yes | No | Recommended |
| Human Oversight | Minimal | Moderate | High | Moderate |
| Feature Flags | Required | Optional | Not used | Optional |
| Merge Strategy | Auto | Agent (after approval) | Manual | Manual + Auto sync |
| Rollback | Automatic | Assisted | Manual | Manual |
| Develop Branch | No | Yes | Yes | Optional |
| Vendor Tracking | No | No | No | Yes |
| Integration Tests | Automated | Automated | Manual | Dual (custom + upstream) |
| E2E Tests | Automated | Automated | Manual | Automated (custom) |
START
│
├─ Do you maintain a fork of external vendor code?
│ │
│ YES ──► Use VENDOR FORK FLOW
│ │ (can combine with flows below for custom development)
│ │
│ NO
│ │
├─ Do you need a `develop` branch?
│ │
│ ├─ YES if:
│ │ • Multiple features need integration testing before release
│ │ • QA team needs stable pre-release environment
│ │ • Release cycles are fixed (weekly/monthly)
│ │ • Team > 5 people working in parallel
│ │ ──► Use SIMPLIFIED GITFLOW or AGENTIC TEAM FLOW
│ │
│ └─ NO if:
│ • Continuous deployment to production
│ • Feature flags handle incomplete features
│ • Strong automated testing (>80% coverage)
│ • Small team or solo developer
│ ──► Use AGENTIC GIT FLOWS (direct to release/main)
│
└─ What's your automation level?
│
├─ High (AI agents, full CI/CD) ──► AGENTIC GIT FLOWS
├─ Medium (CI/CD, some automation) ──► AGENTIC TEAM FLOW
└─ Low (manual processes) ──► SIMPLIFIED GITFLOW
| Scenario | Recommended Flow | Develop Branch? | Vendor Support? |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI-driven solo project | Agentic Git Flows | No | No |
| Small team, monthly releases | Simplified GitFlow | Yes | No |
| Medium team, weekly releases | Agentic Team Flow | Yes | No |
| Fork of open-source project | Vendor Fork Flow | Optional | Yes |
| Fork + team collaboration | Vendor Fork + Team Flow | Yes | Yes |
| Continuous deployment | Agentic Git Flows | No | No |
| Regulated industry (audit required) | Agentic Team Flow | Yes | No |
| Flow | Integration Tests | E2E Tests | Test Environment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic Git Flows | ✅ Automated | ✅ Automated | Staging + Pre-prod |
| Agentic Team Flow | ✅ Automated | ✅ Automated | Staging |
| Simplified GitFlow | ❌ Manual only | ❌ Manual only | Dev + Manual QA |
| Vendor Fork Flow | ✅ Dual suite | ✅ Custom | Staging |
| Environment | Purpose | Used By |
|---|---|---|
| CI (Ephemeral) | PR validation, unit tests | All flows |
| Dev | Developer testing | Simplified, Team |
| Staging | Integration & E2E testing | Agentic, Team, Vendor |
| Pre-prod | Release validation | Agentic Flows |
| Production | Live system, smoke tests | All flows |
All diagrams are maintained as PlantUML files:
| Flow | Source |
|---|---|
| Agentic Git Flows | uml/agentic-git-flows.puml |
| Agentic Team Flow | uml/agentic-team-flow.puml |
| Simplified GitFlow | uml/simplified-gitflow.puml |
| Vendor Fork Flow | uml/vendor-fork-flow.puml |
Last Updated: 2026-01-28