I’m just today after having my first real success with Claude (and generally with coding agents). I’ve played with Cursor in the past but am now trying Claude and others.

As mentioned in the article, the big trick is having clear specs. In my case I sat down for 2 hours and wrote a 12 step document on how I would implement this (along with background information). Claude went through step by step and wrote the code. I imagine this saved me probably 6-10 hours. I’m now reviewing and am going to test etc. and start adjusting and adding future functionality.

Its success was rooted in the fact I knew exactly how to do what it needed to do. I wrote out all the steps and it just followed my lead.

It makes it clear to me that mid and senior developers aren’t going anywhere.

That said, it was amazing to just see it go through the requirements and implement modules full of organised documented code that I didn’t have to write.

  Asking the agent to perform a code review on its own work is surprisingly fruitful.

I do this routinely with its suggestions, usually before I apply them. It is surprising how often Claude immediately dumps on its own last output, talking both of us out if it, and usually with good reasons. I'd like to automate this double-take.

I'm playing with Claude Code to build an ASCII factorio-like. I first had it write code without much code supervision. It quickly added most of the core features you'd expect (save/load, options, debug, building, map generation, building, belts, crafting, smart belt placing, QoL). Then I started fixing minor bugs and each time it would break something eg. tweaking movement broke belts. So I prompted it to add Playwright automation. Then it wasn't able to write good quality tests and have them all pass, the test were full of sleep calls, etc...

So I looked at the code more closely and it was using the React frontend and useEffect instead of a proper game engine. It's also not great at following hook rules and understanding their timing in advance scenarios. So now I'm prompting it to use a proper tick based game engine and rebuilding the game up, doing code reviews. It's going 'slower' now, but it's going much better now.

My goal is to make a Show HN post when I have a good demo.

Including Claude Code into the normal subscription was a genius move by Anthrophic. It's so much better than copy and pasting code from chat windows, but that's hard to tell if I had to pay via an API for that service

if you use Laravel, I wrote github.com/iambateman/speedrun to help get good results. You type /feature [[description of feature]] and it takes it from there.

The system helps you build out a spec first, then uses a few subagents which are tuned for placing files, reviewing for best practice, etc.

I've been using it for about a week and about 70% of my Claude Code usage runs through /feature right now.

The nice thing is you can give it a _lot_ of requests and let it run for 10-15 minutes without interruption. Plus, it makes a set of planning documents before it implements, so you can see exactly what it thought it was changing.

That's a great, short prompt. I'm going to steal it.

I get a lot of success when I’ve laid out the patterns and first implementation of an idea in my code. Then tell Claude to repeat the pattern to implement X feature.

And do it very step by step in what would equate to a tiny PR that gradually roles out the functionality. Too big and I find lots of ugly surprises and bugs and reorganizations that don’t make sense.

I've been working with Claude Code daily for a month or so. It is quite excellent and better than the other agents I have used (Cursor, Q). This article has some good tips that echo some of the things I have learned.

Some additional thoughts:

- I like to start with an ideation session with Claude in the web console. I explain the goals of the project, work through high level domain modeling, and break the project down into milestones with a target releasable goal in mind. For a small project, this might be a couple hours of back and forth. The output of this is the first version of CLAUDE.md.

- Then I start the project with Claude Code, have it read my global CLAUDE.md and the project CLAUDE.md and start going. Each session begins this way.

- I have Claude Code update the project CLAUDE.md as it goes. I have it mark its progress through the plan as it goes. Usually, at the end of the session, I will have it rewrite a special section that contains its summary of the project, how it works, and how to navigate the code. I treat this like Claude's long term memory basically. I have found it helps a lot.

- Even with good guidelines, Claude seems to have a tendency to get ahead of itself. I like to keep it focused and build little increments as I would myself if it is something I care about. If its just some one off or prototype, I let it go crazy and churn whatever works.

One fantastic tip I discovered (sorry I've forgotten who wrote it but probably a fellow HNer):

If you're using an AI for the "architecture" / spec phase, play a few of the models off each other.

I will start with a conversation in Cursor (with appropriate context) and ask Gemini 2.5 Pro to ask clarifying questions and then propose a solution, and once I've got something, switch the model to O3 (or your other preferred thinking model of choice - GPT-5 now?). Add the line "please review the previous conversation and critique the design, ask clarifying questions, and proposal alternatives if you think this is the wrong direction."

Do that a few times back and forth and with your own brain input, you should have a pretty robust conversation log and outline of a good solution.

Export that whole conversation into an .md doc, and use THAT in context with Claude Code to actually dive in and start writing code.

You'll still need to review everything and there will still be errors and bad decisions, but overall this has worked surprisingly well and efficiently for me so far.

Nice post, I'll try a few of those in my own file. From my side, one thing in the troubleshooting section that I think is missing is telling the agent that it should collect some proof of what it thinks is wrong before trying to proceed with a fix. I have burnt through a large number of tokens in the past in situations where Claude took a look at the dodgy code (that it had written) and went 'aha! I know what the problem is here' before proceeding to make things worse. Telling Claude to add in debug print statements can be remarkably effective but I'm sure it can also come up with other approaches.

I use Claude Code regularly and have been responsible for introducing colleagues to it. The consensus here seems to be that it’s the best coding agent out there. But since it’s the only coding agent I’ve used, when colleagues ask why it’s better than Cursor, Cline, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, etc., I sometimes struggle to articulate reasons.

Claude Code power users, what would you say makes it superior to other agents?

Been playing around with Claude Code for a home project over the last week.

I started with an idea but no spec. I got it to a happy place I can deploy yesterday. Spent around $75 on tokens. It was starting to feel expensive towards the end.

I did wonder if I had started with a clearer specification could I have got there quicker and for less money.

The thing is though, looking back at the conversations I had with it, the back and forth (vibe coding I guess) helped me refine what I was actually after so in two minds if a proper tight specification upfront would have been the best thing.

I highly recommend having fairly succinct project level CLAUDE.md files, and defer more things into sub-folders. Use the top level as a map. Then during your planning of a feature, it can reach into each folder as it sees fit to find useful context to build out your phased implementation plan. I have it use thinking mode to figure out the right set of context.

At the end of each phase, I ask claude to update my implementation plan with new context for a new instance of claude to pick it up. This way it propagates context forward, and then I can clear the context window to start fresh on the next phase.

Creating temporary artifacts of implementation plans seem to be very useful for breaking down complex tasks and even more so, for me to double check the logic and plans.

The update to Opus 4.1 really improved the quality.

I personally really like to use Claude Code together with Zen MCP https://github.com/BeehiveInnovations/zen-mcp-server to analyse existing and review fresh code with additional eyes from Gpt5 and Gemini.