Often, it either generates convoluted implementations when simpler ones clearly exist, or it produces code that's riddled with bugs — despite confidently claiming it's correct. I'm wondering if I'm just not using it properly.

Here's my current workflow:

- I first talk to Gemini to gradually clarify and refine my requirements and design.

- I ask Gemini to summarize everything. Then I review and revise that summary.

- I paste the final version into Claude Code, use plan mode, and ask it to generate an implementation plan.

- I review the plan, make adjustments, and then let Claude Code execute it.

- Long wait…

- Review Claude’s output and clean up the mess.

For refactors and bugfixes, I usually write some tests in advance. But for new features, I often don’t.

It often feels like opening a loot box — 50% of the time it does a decent job, the other 50% is pretty bad. I really want to understand how to use it properly to achieve the kind of magical experience people describe.

Also, I’m on the Pro plan, and I rarely hit the rate limit — mainly because there’s a lot of prep work and post-processing I need to do manually. I’m curious about those who do hit rate limits quickly: are you running lots of tasks in parallel? Machines can easily parallelize, sure — but I don’t know how to make myself work in parallel like that.