In my experience, Claude Code is great at making a first-pass at a project, but once you start asking it to make changes, it explodes. A bug fix that should only be 2 lines turns into adding 3 functions totaling 100 lines.
Something as simple as "make the button blue" should be done manually.
Surely you still have to give feedback to Claude. How do you do that without talking to Claude directly? By using a different model? But wouldn't that AI have no more common sense than Claude?
Initial dev required talking to Claude. Now I add a ticket in the board, it makes me a mockup/writeup, I approve, and it gets me a temporary webserver, iOS/Android build, etc. to verify it.
Review loops, agents that enforce my pet peeves and testing/debugging processes, etc. all run automatically... and then Codex strips down the prose at the end. There's not zero AI generated output, but it's already been critiqued and verified by a whole cluster of independent actors before it gets to me. When I have feedback, I file a ticket.
I wanted to get out of the "what the fuck, why?!" loop. Now I let the agents handle that.
I’m of the feeling that talking directly to these things all day is a path to madness.
They talk to each other, come to consensus, and give me a structured thing to look at that has already been vetted and tested and screenshot evidence and a verification plan. It’s not conversational for me.
Ok, but my problem is that what it builds is not right. It's never right on the first try, or the second or third tries. There's always a ton of incremental corrective feedback needed.
Do you run into this problem? If not, then I need to figure out how to stop running into it myself.
If so, then how do you give it all the incremental corrective feedback without a conversation?
