Do you have to review the code? I’ll be honest that, like the OP theorizes, I often just spot review it. But I also get it to write specs (often very good, in terms of the ones I’ve dug into), and I always carefully review and test the results. Because there is also plenty of non-AI code in my projects I didn’t review at all, namely, the myriad open source libraries I’ve installed.
It depends on what you're doing. If it's a simple task, or you're making something that won't grow into something larger, eyeballing the code and testing it is usually perfect. These types of tasks feel great with Claude Code.
If you're trying to build something larger, it's not good enough. Even with careful planning and spec building, Claude Code will still paint you into a corner when it comes to architecture. In my experience, it requires a lot of guidance to write code that can be built upon later.
The difference between the AI code and the open source libraries in this case is that you don't expect to be responsible for the third-party code later. Whether you or Claude ends up working on your code later, you'll need it to be in good shape. So, it's important to give Claude good guidance to build something that can be worked on later.
If you let it paint you into a corner, why are you doing so?
I don't know what you mean by "a lot of guidance". Maybe I just naturally do that, but to me there's not been much change in the level of guidance I need to give Claude Code or my own agent vs. what I'd give developers working for me.
Another issue is that as long as you ensure it builds good enough tests, the cost of telling it to just throw out the code it builds later and redo it with additional architectural guidance keeps dropping.
The code is increasingly becoming throwaway.
> If you let it paint you into a corner, why are you doing so?
What do you mean? If it were as simple as not letting it do so, I would do as you suggest. I may as well stop letting it be incorrect in general. Lots of guidance helps avoid it.
> Maybe I just naturally do that, but to me there's not been much change in the level of guidance I need to give Claude Code or my own agent vs. what I'd give developers working for me.
Well yeah. You need to give it lots of guidance, like someone who works for you.
> the cost of telling it to just throw out the code it builds later and redo it with additional architectural guidance keeps dropping.
It's a moving target for sure. My confidence with this in more complex scenarios is much smaller.
> What do you mean? If it were as simple as not letting it do so, I would do as you suggest.
I'm arguing it is as simple as that. Don't accept changes that muddle up the architecture. Take attempts to do so as evidence that you need to add direction. Same as you presumably would - at least I would - with a developer.
My concern isn't that it's messing up my architecture as I scream in protest from the other room, powerless to stop it. I agree with you and I think I'm being quite clear. Without relatively close guidance, it will paint you into a corner in terms of architecture. Guide it, direct it, whatever you want to call it.
Yes, I’m actually working on an another project with the goal of never looking at the code.
For context, it’s just a reimplementation of a tool I built.
Let’s just say it’s going a lot slower than the first time I built it by hand :)