3 ms·
Here's my workflow (if I feel like using claude) Me: Here's the relevant part of the code, add this simple feature. Opus: here's the modified code blah blah b
by nurettin 1y ago
Here's my workflow (if I feel like using claude)
Me: Here's the relevant part of the code, add this simple feature.
Opus: here's the modified code blah blah bs bs
Me: Will this work?
Opus: There's a fundamental flaw in blah bleh bs bs here's the fix, but I only generate part of the code, go hunt for the lines to make the changes yourself.
Me: did you change anything from the original logic?
Opus: I added this part, do you want me to leave it as it was?
Me: closes chat
- NitpickLawyer 1y agoSorry to be that guy, but you're using it wrong. The best flows right now are architect -> act -> test. First you have a session in "architect" / "plan" mode (depending on your ide/tool) where you discuss, ask questions, etc. Then, when everything is clear in "chat" mode, you ask the model to make a plan. You verify the plan, and then you tell it to start implementing it. You still get to approve tools, calls, tests, etc. You can also provide feedback on the way if you missed something (i.e. use uv instead of pip, etc). Coding in a chat interface, and expecting the same results as with dedicated tools is ... 1-1.5 years old at this point. It might work, but your results will be subpar.
- nurettin 1y agoNah it's good thanks for your input. I saw people use plan.md and todo.md and ide/commandline for this before. manus.ai demonstrates this via its chat interface as well.