20 ms·

Most software engineers are seriously sleeping on how good LLM agents are right now, especially something like Claude Code. Once you’ve got Claude Code set up,

Most software engineers are seriously sleeping on how good LLM agents are right now, especially something like Claude Code. Once you’ve got Claude Code set up, you can point it at your codebase, have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices, and refine everything until it’s basically operating like a super-powered teammate. The real unlock is building a solid set of reusable “skills” plus a few agents for the stuff you do all the time. For example, we have a custom UI library, and Claude Code has a skill that explains exactly how to use it. Same for how we write Storybooks, how we structure APIs, and basically how we want everything done in our repo. So when it generates code, it already matches our patterns and standards out of the box. We also had Claude Code create a bunch of ESLint automation, including custom ESLint rules and lint checks that catch and auto-handle a lot of stuff before it even hits review. Then we take it further: we have a deep code review agent Claude Code runs after changes are made. And when a PR goes up, we have another Claude Code agent that does a full PR review, following a detailed markdown checklist we’ve written for it. On top of that, we’ve got like five other Claude Code GitHub workflow agents that run on a schedule. One of them reads all commits from the last month and makes sure docs are still aligned. Another checks for gaps in end-to-end coverage. Stuff like that. A ton of maintenance and quality work is just… automated. It runs ridiculously smoothly. We even use Claude Code for ticket triage. It reads the ticket, digs into the codebase, and leaves a comment with what it thinks should be done. So when an engineer picks it up, they’re basically starting halfway through already. There is so much low-hanging fruit here that it honestly blows my mind people aren’t all over it. 2026 is going to be a wake-up call. (used voice to text then had claude reword, I am lazy and not gonna hand write it all for yall sorry!) Edit: made an example repo for ya https://github.com/ChrisWiles/claude-code-showcase https://github.com/ChrisWiles/claude-code-showcase

dmbche 9mo ago
Oh! An ad!
- OldGreenYodaGPT 9mo ago
  lol does sound like and ad, but is true. Also forgot about hooks use hooks too! I just use voice to text then had claude reword it. Still my real world ideas
  - Rapzid 9mo ago
    Exactly what an ad would say.
- savanaly 9mo ago
  The most effective kind of marketing is viral word of mouth from users who love your product. And Claude Code is benefiting from that dynamic.
hoten 9mo ago
Mind sharing the bill for all that?
- aschobel 9mo ago
  i've never hit a limit with my $200 a month plan
- OldGreenYodaGPT 9mo ago
  My company pays for the team Claude code plan which is like $200 a month for each dev. The workflows cost like 10 - 50 cents a PR
  - square_usual 9mo ago
    It's $150, not a huge difference but worth noting that it's not the same ast the 20x Max plan.
  - blahblaher 9mo ago
    It will have to quintuple or more to make business sense for Anthropic. Sure, still cheaper than a full time developer, but don't expect it to stay at $200 for a long time. And then, when you explain to your boss how amazing it is, and can do all this work so easily and quickly, it's when your boss start asking the real question: what am I paying you for?
    - bonesss 9mo ago
      More fundamentally: assume a 10 to 30% bump in actual productivity, find a niche (editing software, CRUD frameworks, SharePoint 2.0, stock trading, betting, whatever), and assume you had Anthropics billions or openAIs billions or Microsoft’s billions or Googles billions. Why on earth would you be hunting $20 a month subscriptions from random assed people? Peanuts. Lockheed-Martin could be, but isn’t, opening lemonade stands outside their offices… they don’t because of how buying a Ferrari works.
      - whattheheckheck 9mo ago
aschobel 9mo ago
Agreed and skills are a huge unlock. codex cli even has a skill to create skills; it's super easy to get up to speed with them https://github.com/openai/skills/blob/main/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md https://github.com/openai/skills/blob/main/skills/.system/sk...
mcny 9mo ago
Everybody says how good Claude is and I go to my code base and I can't get it to correctly update one xaml file for me. It is quicker to make changes myself than to explain exactly what I need or learn how to do "prompt engineering". Disclaimer: I don't have access to Claude Code. My employer has only granted me Claude Teams. Supposedly, they don't use my poopy code to train their models if I use my work email Claude so I am supposed to use that. If I'm not pasting code (asking general questions) into Claude, I believe I'm allowed to use whatever.
- spaceman_2020 9mo ago
  What's even the point of this comment if you self-admittedly don't have access to the flagship tool that everyone has been using to make these big bold coding claims?
  - halfmatthalfcat 9mo ago
    Because the same claims of "AI tool does everything" are made over and over again.
    - spaceman_2020 9mo ago
      The claims are being made for Claude Code, which you don't have access to.
      - mr_mitm 9mo ago
        I believe part of why Claude Code is so great because it has the chance to catch its own mistakes. It can run compilers, linters, browsers and check its own output. If it makes a mistake, it takes one or two extra iterations until it gets it right.
    - fragmede 9mo ago
      It's not "AI tool does everything", it's specifically Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is great at "it", for whatever "it" a given commenter is claiming.
spaceman_2020 9mo ago
I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a new tier however. It just...works. The errors are far fewer and often very minor - "careless" errors, not fundamental issues (like forgetting to add "use client" to a nextjs client component.
- AstroBen 9mo ago
  my issue hasn't been for a long time now that the code they write works or doesn't work. My issues all stem from that it works, but does the wrong thing
  - jmathai 9mo ago
    I think it's worth understanding why. Because that's not everyone's experience and there's a chance you could make a change such that you find it extremely useful. There's a lesser chance that you're working on a code base that Claude Code just isn't capable of helping with.
  - simonw 9mo ago
    If it does the wrong thing you tell it what the right thing is and have it try again. With the latest models if you're clear enough with your requirements you'll usually find it does the right thing on the first try.
    - cadamsdotcom 9mo ago
      Even better, have it write code to describe the right thing then run its code against that, taking yourself out of that loop.
    - giancarlostoro 9mo ago
      And if you've told it too many times to fix it, tell it someone has a gun to your head, for some reason it almost always gets it right this very next time.
theanonymousone 9mo ago
Is Claude "Code" anything special,or it's mostly the LLM and other CLIs (e.g. Copilot) also work?
- square_usual 9mo ago
  I've tried most of the CLI coding tools with the Claude models and I keep coming back to Claude Code. It hits a sweet spot of simple and capable, and right now I'd say it's the best from an "it just works" perspective.
- catlover76 9mo ago
  [dead]
- speedgoose 9mo ago
  It’s mostly the model, Copilot, Claude Code, OpenCode, snake oil like Oh My OpenCode, it’s not huge differences.
  - troupo 9mo ago
    Claude Code seems to package a relatively smart prompt as well, as it seems to work better even with one-line prompts than alternatives that just invoke the API. Key word: seems. It's impossible to do a proper qualitative analysis.
  - pluralmonad 9mo ago
    Why do you call Oh My OpenCode snake oil?
- kaydub 9mo ago
  In my experience the CLI tool is part of the secret sauce. I haven't tried switching models per each CLI tool though. I use claude exclusively at work and for personal projects I use claude, codex, gemini.
6177c40f 9mo ago
I think we're entering a world where programmers as such won't really exist (except perhaps in certain niches). Being able to program (and read code, in particular) will probably remain useful, though diminished in value. What will matter more is your ability to actually create things, using whatever tools are necessary and available, and have them actually be useful. Which, in a way, is the same as it ever was. There's just less indirection involved now.
- pseidemann 9mo ago
  Isn't there more indirection as long as LLMs use "human" programming languages?
  - 6177c40f 9mo ago
    More indirection in the sense that there's a layer between you and the code, sure. Less in that the code doesn't really matter as such and you're not having to think hard about the minutiae of programming in order to make something you want. It's very possible that "AI-oriented" programming languages will become the standard eventually (at least for new projects).
    - recursive 9mo ago
      One benefit of conventional code is that it expresses logic in an unambiguous way. Much of "the minutiae" is deciding what happens in edge cases. It's even harder to express that in a human language than in computer languages. For some domains it probably doesn't matter.
  - layer8 9mo ago
    It’s not clear how affordances of programming languages really differ between humans and LLMs.
  - xarope 9mo ago
    If you think of the training data, e.g. SO, github etc, then you have a human asking or describing a problem, then the code as the solution. So I suspect current-gen LLMs are still following this model, which means for the forseeable future a human like language prompt will still be the best. Until such time, of course, when LLMs are eating their own dogfood, in which case they - as has already happened - create their own language, evolve dramatically, and cue skynet.
Yoric 9mo ago
You intrigue me. > have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices What do you mean by "have it learn your conventions"? Is there a way to somehow automatically extract your conventions and store it within CLAUDE.md? > For example, we have a custom UI library, and Claude Code has a skill that explains exactly how to use it. Same for how we write Storybooks, how we structure APIs, and basically how we want everything done in our repo. So when it generates code, it already matches our patterns and standards out of the box. Did you have to develop these skills yourself? How much work was that? Do you have public examples somewhere?
- gingersnap 9mo ago
  Starting to use Opus 4.5 I'm reduces instrutions in claude.md and just ask claude to look in the codebase to understand the patterns already in use. Going from prompts/docs to instead having code being the "truth". Show don't tell. I've found this patterns has made a huge leap with Opus 4.5.
  - zoilism 9mo ago
    The Ash framework takes the approach you describe. From the docs (https://hexdocs.pm/ash/what-is-ash.html https://hexdocs.pm/ash/what-is-ash.html): "Model your application's behavior first, as data, and derive everything else automatically. Ash resources center around actions that represent domain logic."
  - kaydub 9mo ago
    I feel like I've been doing this since Sonnet 3.5 or Sonnet 4. I'll clone projects/modules/whatever into the working directory and tell claude to check it out. Voila, now it knows your standards and conventions.
- oncallthrow 9mo ago
  When I ask Claude to do something, it independently, without me even asking or instructing it to, searches the codebase to understand what the convention is. I’ve even found it searching node_modules to find the API of non-public libraries.
enum 9mo ago
I teach at a university, and spend plenty of time programming for research and for fun. Like many others, I spent some time on the holidays trying to push the current generation of Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex as far as I could. (They're all very good.) I had an idea for something that I wanted, and in five scattered hours, I got it good enough to use. I'm thinking about it in a few different ways: 1. I estimate I could have done it without AI with 2 weeks full-time effort. (Full-time defined as >> 40 hours / week.) 2. I have too many other things to do that are purportedly more important that programming. I really can't dedicate to two weeks full-time to a "nice to have" project. So, without AI, I wouldn't have done it at all. 3. I could hire someone to do it for me. At the university, those are students. From experience with lots of advising, a top-tier undergraduate student could have achieved the same thing, had they worked full tilt for a semester (before LLMs). This of course assumes that I'm meeting them every week.
- vercaemert 9mo ago
  How do you compare Claude Code to Cursor? I'm a Cursor user quietly watching the CC parade with curiosity. Personally, I haven't been able to give up the IDE experience.
  - enum 9mo ago
    I don't think I can scientifically compare the agents. As it is, you can use Opus / Codex in Cursor. The speed of Cursor composer-1 is phenomenal -- you can use it interactively for many tasks. There are also tasks that are not easier to describe in English, but you can tab through them.
  - lizardking 9mo ago
    When I'm using Claude Code, I usually have a text editor open as well. The CC plugin works well enough to achieve most of what Cursor was doing for me in showing real-time diffs, but in my experience, the output is better and faster. YMMV
  - smw 9mo ago
    Just FYI, these days cc has 'ide integration' too, it's not just a cli. Grab the vscode extension.
moltar 9mo ago
If anyone is excited about, and has experience with this kind of stuff, please DM. I have a role open for setting up these kinds of tools and workflows.
Loeffelmann 9mo ago
Why do all these AI generated readmes have a directory structure sections it's so redundant because you know I could just run tree
- bakies 9mo ago
  comments? also reading into an agent so the agent doesnt have to tool-call/bash out
- sonnig 9mo ago
  It makes me so exhausted trying to read them... my brain can tell immediately when there's so much redundant information that it just starts shutting itself off.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
risyachka 9mo ago
They are sleeping on it because there is absolutely no incentive to use it. When needed it can be picked up in a day. Otherwise they are not paid based in tickets solved etc. If the incentives were properly aligned everyone would already use it
keybored 9mo ago
> (used voice to text then had claude reword, I am lazy and not gonna hand write it all for yall sorry!) Reword? But why not just voice to text alone... Oh but we all read the partially synthetic ad by this point. Psyche.
TacticalCoder 9mo ago
> Most software engineers are seriously sleeping on how good LLM agents are right now, especially something like Claude Code. Nobody is sleeping. I'm using LLMs daily to help me in simple coding tasks. But really where is the hurry? At this point not a few weeks go by without the next best thing since sliced bread to come out. Why would I bother "learning" (and there's really nothing to learn here) some tool/workflow that is already outdated by the time it comes out? > 2026 is going to be a wake-up call Do you honestly think a developer not using AI won't be able to adapt to a LLM workflow in, say, 2028 or 2029? It has to be 2026 or... What exactly? There is literally no hurry. You're using the equivalent of the first portable CD-player in the 80s: it was huge, clunky, had hiccups, had a huge battery attached to it. It was shiny though, for those who find new things shiny. Others are waiting for a portable CD player that is slim, that buffers, that works fine. And you're saying that people won't be able to learn how to put a CD in a slim CD player because they didn't use a clunky one first.
- simonw 9mo ago
  I think getting proficient at using coding agents effectively takes a few months of practice. It's also a skill that compounds over time, so if you have two years of experience with them you'll be able to use them more effectively than someone with two months of experience. In that respect, they're just normal technology. A Python programmer with two years of Python experience will be more effective than a programmer with two months of Python.
- jasonfarnon 9mo ago
  "But really where is the hurry?" It just depends on why you're programming. For many of us not learning and using up to date products leads to a disadvantage relative to our competition. I personally would very much rather go back to a world without AI, but we're forced to adapt. I didn't like when pagers/cell phones came out either, but it became clear very quickly not having one put me at a disadvantage at work.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  > Nobody is sleeping. I'm using LLMs daily to help me in simple coding tasks. That is sleeping. > But really where is the hurry? At this point not a few weeks go by without the next best thing since sliced bread to come out. Why would I bother "learning" (and there's really nothing to learn here) some tool/workflow that is already outdated by the time it comes out? You're jumping to conclusions that haven't been justified by any of the development in this space. The learning compounds. > Do you honestly think a developer not using AI won't be able to adapt to a LLM workflow in, say, 2028 or 2029? It has to be 2026 or... What exactly? They will, but they'll be competing against people with 2-3 more years of experience in understanding how to leverage these tools.
avereveard 9mo ago
Also new haiku. Not as smart but lighting fast, I've it review code changes impact or if i need a wide but shallow change done I've it scan the files and create a change plan. Saves a lot of time waiting for claude or codex to get their bearing.
klaussilveira 9mo ago
I made a similar comment on a different thread, but I think it also fits here: I think the disconnect between engineers is due to their own context. If you work with frontend applications, specially React/React Native/HTML/Mobile, your experience with LLMs is completely different than the experience of someone working with OpenGL, io_uring, libev and other lower level stuff. Sure, Opus 4.5 can one shot Windows utilities and full stack apps, but can't implement a simple shadowing algorithm from a 2003 paper in C++, GLFW, GLAD: https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~uffe/soft_gfxhw2003.pdf https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~uffe/soft_gfxhw2003.pdf Codex/Claude Code are terrible with C++. It also can't do Rust really well, once you get to the meat of it. Not sure why that is, but they just spit out nonsense that creates more work than it helps me. It also can't one shot anything complete, even though I might feed him the entire paper that explains what the algorithm is supposed to do. Try to do some OpenGL or Vulkan with it, without using WebGPU or three.js. Try it with real code, that all of us have to deal with every day. SDL, Vulkan RHI, NVRHI. Very frustrating. Try it with boost, or cmake, or taskflow. It loses itself constantly, hallucinates which version it is working on and ignores you when you provide actual pointers to documentation on the repo. I've also recently tried to get Opus 4.5 to move the Job system from Doom 3 BFG to the original codebase. Clean clone of dhewm3, pointed Opus to the BFG Job system codebase, and explained how it works. I have also fed it the Fabien Sanglard code review of the job system: https://fabiensanglard.net/doom3_bfg/threading.php https://fabiensanglard.net/doom3_bfg/threading.php We are not sleeping on it, we are actually waiting for it to get actually useful. Sure, it can generate a full stack admin control panel in JS for my PostgreSQL tables, but is that really "not normal"? That's basic.
- wild_egg 9mo ago
  I've had Opus 4.5 hand rolling CUDA kernels and writing a custom event loop on io_uring lately and both were done really well. Need to set up the right feedback loops so it can test its work thoroughly but then it flies.
  - jaggederest 9mo ago
    Yeah I've handed it a naive scalar implementation and said "Make this use SIMD for Mac Silicon / NEON" and it just spits out a working implementation that's 3-6x faster and passes the tests, which are binary exact specifications.
andrekandre 9mo ago
> we have another Claude Code agent that does a full PR review, following a detailed markdown checklist we’ve written for it. (if you know) how is that compared to coderabbit? i'm seriously looking for something better rn...
- megalomanu 9mo ago
  Never tried coderabbit, just because this is already good enough with Claude Code. It helped us to catch dozens of important issues we wouldn't have caught. We gave some instructions in the CLAUDE.md doc in the repository - with including a nice personalized roast of the engineer that did the review in the intro and conclusion to make it fun! :) Basically, when you do a "create PR" from your Claude Code, it will help you getting your Linear ticket (or creating one if missing), ask you some important questions (like: what tests have you done?), create the PR on Github, request the reviewers, and post a "Auto Review" message with your credentials. It's not an actual review per se but this is enough for our small team.
  - andrekandre 9mo ago
    thanks for the reply, yea we have a claude.md file, but coderabbit doesn't seem to pick it up or ignore it... hmmm wish we could try out claude code.
    - tinodb 9mo ago
      Codex is even better in my experience at reviewing. You can find the prompt it uses in the repo
winterbloom 9mo ago
Didn't feel like reading all this so I shortened it! sorry! I shortened it for anyone else that might need it ---- Software engineers are sleeping on Claude Code agents. By teaching it your conventions, you can automate your entire workflow: Custom Skills: Generates code matching your UI library and API patterns. Quality Ops: Automates ESLint, doc syncing, and E2E coverage audits. Agentic Reviews: Performs deep PR checks against custom checklists. Smart Triage: Pre-analyzes tickets to give devs a head start. Check out the showcase repo to see these patterns in action.
- gjvc 9mo ago
  you are part of the problem
majormajor 9mo ago
All of these things work very well IMO in a professional context. Especially if you're in a place where a lot of time was spent previously revising PRs for best practices, etc, even for human-submitted code, then having the LLM do that for you that saves a bunch of time. Most humans are bad at following those super-well. There's a lot of stuff where I'm pretty sure I'm up to at least 2x speed now. And for things like making CLI tools or bash scripts, 10x-20x. But in terms of "the overall output of my day job in total", probably more like 1.5x. But I think we will need a couple major leaps in tooling - probably deterministic tooling, not LLM tooling - before anyone could responsibly ship code nobody has ever read in situations with millions of dollars on the line (which is different from vibe-coding something that ends up making millions - that's a low-risk-high-reward situation, where big bets on doing things fast make sense. if you're already making millions, dramatic changes like that can become high-risk-low-reward very quickly. In those companies, "I know that only touching these files is 99.99% likely to be completely safe for security-critical functionality" and similar "obvious" intuition makes up for the lack of ability to exhaustively test software in a practical way (even with fuzzers and things), and "i didn't even look at the code" is conceding responsibility to a dangerous degree there.)
chandureddyvari 9mo ago
Came across official anthropic repo on gh actions very relevant to what you mentioned. Your idea on scheduled doc updation using llm is brilliant, I’m stealing this idea. https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action
jdthedisciple 9mo ago
I'm curious: With that much Claude Code usage, does that put your monthly Anthropic bill above $1000/mo?
BatteryMountain 9mo ago
The crazy part is, once you have it setup and adapted your workflow, you start to notice all sorts of other "small" things: claude can call ssh and do system admin tasks. It works amazingly well. I have 3 VM's, which depends on each other (proxmox with openwrt, adguard, unbound), and claude can prove to me that my dns chains works perfectly, my firewalls are perfect etc as claude can ssh into each. Setting up services, diagnosing issues, auditing configs... you name it. Just awesome. claude can call other sh scripts on the machine, so over time, you can create a bunch of scripts that lets claude one shot certain tasks that would normally eat tokens. It works great. One script per intention - don't have a script do more than one thing. claude can call the compiler, run the debug executable and read the debug logs.. in real time. So claude can read my android apps debug stream via adb.. or my C# debug console because claude calls the compiler, not me. Just ask it to do it and it will diagnose stuff really quickly. It can also analyze your db tables (give it readonly sql access), look at the application code and queries, and diagnose performance issues. The opportunities are endless here. People need to wake up to this.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- theshrike79 9mo ago
  I have a /fix-ci-build slash command that instructs Claude how to use `gh` to get the latest build from that specific project's Github Actions and get the logs for the build In addition there are instructions on how and where to push the possible fixes and how to check the results. I've yet to encounter a build failure it couldn't fix automatically.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  > claude can call ssh and do system admin tasks Claude set up a Raspberry Pi with a display and conference audio device for me to use as an Alexa replacement tied to Home Assistant. I gave it an ssh key and gave it root. Then I told it what I wanted, and it did. It asked for me to confirm certain things, like what I could see on screen, whether I could hear the TTS etc. (it was a bit of a surprise when it was suddenly talking to me while I was minding my own business). It configured everything, while keeping a meticulous log that I can point it at if I want to set up another device, and eventually turn into a runbook if I need to.
dominicrose 9mo ago
Use Claude Code... to do what? There are multiple layers of people involved in the decision process and they only come up with a few ideas every now and then. Nothing I can't handle. AI helps but it doesn't have to be an agent. I'm not saying there aren't use cases for agents, just that it's normal that most software engineers are sleeping on it.
philipwhiuk 9mo ago
I was expecting a showcase to showcase what you've done with it, not just another person's attempt at instructing an AI to follow instructions.
ps 9mo ago
OK, I am gonna be the guy and put my skin in the game here. I kind of get the hype, but the experience with e.g. Claude Code (or Github Copilot previously and others as weel) has so far been pretty unreliable. I have Django project with 50 kLOC and it is pretty capable of understanding the architecture, style of coding, naming of variables, functions etc. Sometimes it excels on tasks like "replicate this non-trivial functionality for this other model and update the UI appropriately" and leaves me stunned. Sometimes it solves for me tedious and labourous "replace this markdown editor with something modern, allowing fullscreen edits of content" and does annoying mistake that only visual control shows and is not capable to fix it after 5 prompts. I feel as I am becoming tester more than a developer and I do not like the shift. Especially when I do not like to tell someone he did an obvious mistake and should fix it - it seems I do not care if it is human or AI, I just do not like incompetence I guess. Yesterday I had to add some parameters to very simple Falcon project and found out it has not been updated for several months and won't build due to some pip issues with pymssql. OK, this is really marginal sub-project so I said - let's migrate it to uv and let's not get hands dirty and let the Claude do it. He did splendidly but in the Dockerfile he missed the "COPY server.py /data/" while I asked him to change the path... Build failed, I updated the path myself and moved on. And then you listen to very smart guys like Karpathy who rave about Tab, Tab, Tab, while not understanding the language or anything about the code they write. Am I getting this wrong? I am really far far away from letting agents touch my infrastructure via SSH, access managed databases with full access privileges etc. and dread the day one of my silly customers asks me to give their agent permission to managed services. One might say the liability should then be shifted, but at the end of the day, humans will have to deal with the damage done. My customer who uses all the codebase I am mentioning here asked me, if there is a way to provide "some AI" with item GTINs and let it generate photos, descriptions, etc. including metadata they handcrafted and extracted for years from various sources. While it looks like nice idea and for them the possibility of decreasing the staff count, I caught the feeling they do not care about the data quality anymore or do not understand the problems the are brining upon them due to errors nobody will catch until it is too late. TL;DR: I am using Opus 4.5, it helps a lot, I have to keep being (very) cautious. Wake up call 2026? Rather like waking up from hallucination.
lfliosdjf 9mo ago
Why dont I see any streams building apps as quickly as they say? Just HYpe
gjvc 9mo ago
> (used voice to text then had claude reword, I am lazy and not gonna hand write it all for yall sorry!) take my downvote as hard as you can. this sort of thing is awfully off-putting.
kaydub 9mo ago
I'm at the point where I say fuck it, let them sleep. The tech industry just went through an insane hiring craze and is now thinning out. This will help to separate the chaff from the wheat. I don't know why any company would want to hire "tech" people who are terrified of tech and completely obstinate when it comes to utilizing it. All the people I see downplaying it take a half-assed approach at using it then disparage it when it's not completely perfect. I started tinkering with LLMs in 2022. First use case, speak in natural english to the llm, give it a json structure, have it decipher the natural language and fill in that json structure (vacation planning app, so you talk to it about where/how you want to vacation and it creates the structured data in the app). Sometimes I'd use it for minor coding fixes (copy and paste a block into chatgpt, fix errors or maybe just ideation). This was all personal project stuff. At my job we got LLM access in mid/late 2023. Not crazy useful, but still was helpful. We got claude code in 2024. These days I only have an IDE open so I can make quick changes (like bumping up a config parameter, changing a config bool, etc.). I almost write ZERO code now. I usually have 3+ claude code sessions open. On my personal projects I'm using Gemini + codex primarily (since I have a google account and chatgpt $20/month account). When I get throttled on those I go to claude and pay per token. I'll often rip through new features, projects, ideas with one agent, then I have another agent come through and clean things up, look for code smells, etc. I don't allow the agents to have full unfettered control, but I'd say 70%+ of the time I just blindly accept their changes. If there are problems I can catch them on the MR/PR. I agree about the low hanging fruit and I'm constantly shocked at the sheer amount of FUD around LLMs. I want to generalize, like I feel like it's just the mid/jr level devs that speak poorly about it, but there's definitely senior/staff level people I see (rarely, mind you) that also don't like LLMs. I do feel like the online sentiment is slowly starting to change though. One thing I've noticed a lot of is that when it's an anonymous post it's more likely to downplay LLMs. But if I go on linkedin and look at actual good engineers I see them praising LLMs. Someone speaking about how powerful the LLMs are - working on sophisticated projects at startups or FAANG. Someone with FUD when it comes to LLM - web dev out of Alabama. I could go on and on but I'm just ranting/venting a little. I guess I can end this by saying that in my professional/personal life 9/10 of the top level best engineers I know are jumping on LLMs any chance they get. Only 1/10 talks about AI slop or bullshit like that.
- 9mo ago
ndesaulniers 9mo ago
Thanks for the example! There's a lot (of boilerplate?) here that I don't understand. Does anyone have good references for catching up to speed what's the purpose of all of these files in the demo?
maxkfranz 9mo ago
> Once you’ve got Claude Code set up, you can point it at your codebase, have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices, and refine everything until it’s basically operating like a super-powered teammate. The real unlock is building a solid set of reusable “skills” plus a few agents for the stuff you do all the time. I agree with this, but I haven't needed to use any advanced features to get good results. I think the simple approach gets you most of the benefits. Broadly, I just have markdown files in the repo written for a human dev audience that the agent can also use. Basically: - README.md with a quick start section for devs, descriptions of all build targets and tests, etc. Normal stuff. - AGENTS.md (only file that's not written for people specifically) that just describes the overall directory structure and has a short step of instructions for the agent: (1) Always read the readme before you start. (2) Always read the relevant design docs before you start. (3) Always run the linter, a build, and tests whenever you make code changes. - docs/*.md that contain design docs, architecture docs, and user stories, just text. It's important to have these resources anyway, agent or no. As with human devs, the better the docs/requirements the better the results.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  I'd really encourage you to try using agents for tasks that are repeatable and/or wordy but where most of the words are not relevant for ongoing understanding. It's a tiny step further, and sub-agents provide a massive benefit the moment you're ready to trust the model even a little bit (relax permissions to not have it prompt you for every little thing; review before committing rather than on every file edit) because they limit what goes into the top level context, and can let the model work unassisted for far longer. I now regularly have it run for hours at a time without stopping. Running and acting on output from the linter is absolutely an example of that which matters even for much shorter runs. There's no reason to have all the lint output "polluting" the top level context, nor to have the steps the agent needs to take to fix linter issues that can't be auto-fixed by the linter itself. The top level agent should only need to care about whether the linter run passed or failed (and should know it needs to re-run and possibly investigate if it fails). Just type /agents, select "Create new agent" and describe a task you often do, and then forget about it (or ask Claude to make changes to it for you)
nijave 9mo ago
I still struggle with these things being _too_ good at generating code. They have a tendency to add abstractions, classes, wrappers, factories, builders to things that didn't really need all that. I find they spit out 6 files worth of code for something that really only needed 2-3 and I'm spending time going back through simplifying. There are times those extra layers are worth it but it seems LLMs have a bias to add them prematurely and overcomplicate things. You then end up with extra complexity you didn't need.
profstasiak 9mo ago
I use claude code all the time, but never allow it to edit my code. It proposes spaghetti code almost 80% of time

dmbche 9mo ago

Oh! An ad!

OldGreenYodaGPT 9mo ago
lol does sound like and ad, but is true. Also forgot about hooks use hooks too! I just use voice to text then had claude reword it. Still my real world ideas
- Rapzid 9mo ago
  Exactly what an ad would say.
savanaly 9mo ago
The most effective kind of marketing is viral word of mouth from users who love your product. And Claude Code is benefiting from that dynamic.

hoten 9mo ago

Mind sharing the bill for all that?

aschobel 9mo ago
i've never hit a limit with my $200 a month plan
OldGreenYodaGPT 9mo ago
My company pays for the team Claude code plan which is like $200 a month for each dev. The workflows cost like 10 - 50 cents a PR
- square_usual 9mo ago
  It's $150, not a huge difference but worth noting that it's not the same ast the 20x Max plan.
- blahblaher 9mo ago
  It will have to quintuple or more to make business sense for Anthropic. Sure, still cheaper than a full time developer, but don't expect it to stay at $200 for a long time. And then, when you explain to your boss how amazing it is, and can do all this work so easily and quickly, it's when your boss start asking the real question: what am I paying you for?
  - bonesss 9mo ago
    More fundamentally: assume a 10 to 30% bump in actual productivity, find a niche (editing software, CRUD frameworks, SharePoint 2.0, stock trading, betting, whatever), and assume you had Anthropics billions or openAIs billions or Microsoft’s billions or Googles billions. Why on earth would you be hunting $20 a month subscriptions from random assed people? Peanuts. Lockheed-Martin could be, but isn’t, opening lemonade stands outside their offices… they don’t because of how buying a Ferrari works.
    - whattheheckheck 9mo ago

aschobel 9mo ago

Agreed and skills are a huge unlock. codex cli even has a skill to create skills; it's super easy to get up to speed with them https://github.com/openai/skills/blob/main/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md https://github.com/openai/skills/blob/main/skills/.system/sk...

mcny 9mo ago

Everybody says how good Claude is and I go to my code base and I can't get it to correctly update one xaml file for me. It is quicker to make changes myself than to explain exactly what I need or learn how to do "prompt engineering". Disclaimer: I don't have access to Claude Code. My employer has only granted me Claude Teams. Supposedly, they don't use my poopy code to train their models if I use my work email Claude so I am supposed to use that. If I'm not pasting code (asking general questions) into Claude, I believe I'm allowed to use whatever.

spaceman_2020 9mo ago
What's even the point of this comment if you self-admittedly don't have access to the flagship tool that everyone has been using to make these big bold coding claims?
- halfmatthalfcat 9mo ago
  Because the same claims of "AI tool does everything" are made over and over again.
  - spaceman_2020 9mo ago
    The claims are being made for Claude Code, which you don't have access to.
    - mr_mitm 9mo ago
      I believe part of why Claude Code is so great because it has the chance to catch its own mistakes. It can run compilers, linters, browsers and check its own output. If it makes a mistake, it takes one or two extra iterations until it gets it right.
  - fragmede 9mo ago
    It's not "AI tool does everything", it's specifically Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is great at "it", for whatever "it" a given commenter is claiming.

spaceman_2020 9mo ago

I really think a lof of people tried AI coding earlier, got frustrated at the errors and gave up. That's where the rejection of all these doomer predictions comes from. And I get it. Coding with Claude Code really was prompting something, getting errors, and asking it to fix it. Which was still useful but I could see why a skilled coder adding a feature to a complex codebase would just give up Opus 4.5 really is at a new tier however. It just...works. The errors are far fewer and often very minor - "careless" errors, not fundamental issues (like forgetting to add "use client" to a nextjs client component.

AstroBen 9mo ago
my issue hasn't been for a long time now that the code they write works or doesn't work. My issues all stem from that it works, but does the wrong thing
- jmathai 9mo ago
  I think it's worth understanding why. Because that's not everyone's experience and there's a chance you could make a change such that you find it extremely useful. There's a lesser chance that you're working on a code base that Claude Code just isn't capable of helping with.
- simonw 9mo ago
  If it does the wrong thing you tell it what the right thing is and have it try again. With the latest models if you're clear enough with your requirements you'll usually find it does the right thing on the first try.
  - cadamsdotcom 9mo ago
    Even better, have it write code to describe the right thing then run its code against that, taking yourself out of that loop.
  - giancarlostoro 9mo ago
    And if you've told it too many times to fix it, tell it someone has a gun to your head, for some reason it almost always gets it right this very next time.

theanonymousone 9mo ago

Is Claude "Code" anything special,or it's mostly the LLM and other CLIs (e.g. Copilot) also work?

square_usual 9mo ago
I've tried most of the CLI coding tools with the Claude models and I keep coming back to Claude Code. It hits a sweet spot of simple and capable, and right now I'd say it's the best from an "it just works" perspective.
catlover76 9mo ago
[dead]
speedgoose 9mo ago
It’s mostly the model, Copilot, Claude Code, OpenCode, snake oil like Oh My OpenCode, it’s not huge differences.
- troupo 9mo ago
  Claude Code seems to package a relatively smart prompt as well, as it seems to work better even with one-line prompts than alternatives that just invoke the API. Key word: seems. It's impossible to do a proper qualitative analysis.
- pluralmonad 9mo ago
  Why do you call Oh My OpenCode snake oil?
kaydub 9mo ago
In my experience the CLI tool is part of the secret sauce. I haven't tried switching models per each CLI tool though. I use claude exclusively at work and for personal projects I use claude, codex, gemini.

6177c40f 9mo ago

I think we're entering a world where programmers as such won't really exist (except perhaps in certain niches). Being able to program (and read code, in particular) will probably remain useful, though diminished in value. What will matter more is your ability to actually create things, using whatever tools are necessary and available, and have them actually be useful. Which, in a way, is the same as it ever was. There's just less indirection involved now.

pseidemann 9mo ago
Isn't there more indirection as long as LLMs use "human" programming languages?
- 6177c40f 9mo ago
  More indirection in the sense that there's a layer between you and the code, sure. Less in that the code doesn't really matter as such and you're not having to think hard about the minutiae of programming in order to make something you want. It's very possible that "AI-oriented" programming languages will become the standard eventually (at least for new projects).
  - recursive 9mo ago
    One benefit of conventional code is that it expresses logic in an unambiguous way. Much of "the minutiae" is deciding what happens in edge cases. It's even harder to express that in a human language than in computer languages. For some domains it probably doesn't matter.
- layer8 9mo ago
  It’s not clear how affordances of programming languages really differ between humans and LLMs.
- xarope 9mo ago
  If you think of the training data, e.g. SO, github etc, then you have a human asking or describing a problem, then the code as the solution. So I suspect current-gen LLMs are still following this model, which means for the forseeable future a human like language prompt will still be the best. Until such time, of course, when LLMs are eating their own dogfood, in which case they - as has already happened - create their own language, evolve dramatically, and cue skynet.

Yoric 9mo ago

You intrigue me. > have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices What do you mean by "have it learn your conventions"? Is there a way to somehow automatically extract your conventions and store it within CLAUDE.md? > For example, we have a custom UI library, and Claude Code has a skill that explains exactly how to use it. Same for how we write Storybooks, how we structure APIs, and basically how we want everything done in our repo. So when it generates code, it already matches our patterns and standards out of the box. Did you have to develop these skills yourself? How much work was that? Do you have public examples somewhere?

gingersnap 9mo ago
Starting to use Opus 4.5 I'm reduces instrutions in claude.md and just ask claude to look in the codebase to understand the patterns already in use. Going from prompts/docs to instead having code being the "truth". Show don't tell. I've found this patterns has made a huge leap with Opus 4.5.
- zoilism 9mo ago
  The Ash framework takes the approach you describe. From the docs (https://hexdocs.pm/ash/what-is-ash.html https://hexdocs.pm/ash/what-is-ash.html): "Model your application's behavior first, as data, and derive everything else automatically. Ash resources center around actions that represent domain logic."
- kaydub 9mo ago
  I feel like I've been doing this since Sonnet 3.5 or Sonnet 4. I'll clone projects/modules/whatever into the working directory and tell claude to check it out. Voila, now it knows your standards and conventions.
oncallthrow 9mo ago
When I ask Claude to do something, it independently, without me even asking or instructing it to, searches the codebase to understand what the convention is. I’ve even found it searching node_modules to find the API of non-public libraries.

enum 9mo ago

I teach at a university, and spend plenty of time programming for research and for fun. Like many others, I spent some time on the holidays trying to push the current generation of Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex as far as I could. (They're all very good.) I had an idea for something that I wanted, and in five scattered hours, I got it good enough to use. I'm thinking about it in a few different ways: 1. I estimate I could have done it without AI with 2 weeks full-time effort. (Full-time defined as >> 40 hours / week.) 2. I have too many other things to do that are purportedly more important that programming. I really can't dedicate to two weeks full-time to a "nice to have" project. So, without AI, I wouldn't have done it at all. 3. I could hire someone to do it for me. At the university, those are students. From experience with lots of advising, a top-tier undergraduate student could have achieved the same thing, had they worked full tilt for a semester (before LLMs). This of course assumes that I'm meeting them every week.

vercaemert 9mo ago
How do you compare Claude Code to Cursor? I'm a Cursor user quietly watching the CC parade with curiosity. Personally, I haven't been able to give up the IDE experience.
- enum 9mo ago
  I don't think I can scientifically compare the agents. As it is, you can use Opus / Codex in Cursor. The speed of Cursor composer-1 is phenomenal -- you can use it interactively for many tasks. There are also tasks that are not easier to describe in English, but you can tab through them.
- lizardking 9mo ago
  When I'm using Claude Code, I usually have a text editor open as well. The CC plugin works well enough to achieve most of what Cursor was doing for me in showing real-time diffs, but in my experience, the output is better and faster. YMMV
- smw 9mo ago
  Just FYI, these days cc has 'ide integration' too, it's not just a cli. Grab the vscode extension.

moltar 9mo ago

If anyone is excited about, and has experience with this kind of stuff, please DM. I have a role open for setting up these kinds of tools and workflows.

Loeffelmann 9mo ago

Why do all these AI generated readmes have a directory structure sections it's so redundant because you know I could just run tree

bakies 9mo ago
comments? also reading into an agent so the agent doesnt have to tool-call/bash out
sonnig 9mo ago
It makes me so exhausted trying to read them... my brain can tell immediately when there's so much redundant information that it just starts shutting itself off.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

risyachka 9mo ago

They are sleeping on it because there is absolutely no incentive to use it. When needed it can be picked up in a day. Otherwise they are not paid based in tickets solved etc. If the incentives were properly aligned everyone would already use it

keybored 9mo ago

> (used voice to text then had claude reword, I am lazy and not gonna hand write it all for yall sorry!) Reword? But why not just voice to text alone... Oh but we all read the partially synthetic ad by this point. Psyche.

TacticalCoder 9mo ago

> Most software engineers are seriously sleeping on how good LLM agents are right now, especially something like Claude Code. Nobody is sleeping. I'm using LLMs daily to help me in simple coding tasks. But really where is the hurry? At this point not a few weeks go by without the next best thing since sliced bread to come out. Why would I bother "learning" (and there's really nothing to learn here) some tool/workflow that is already outdated by the time it comes out? > 2026 is going to be a wake-up call Do you honestly think a developer not using AI won't be able to adapt to a LLM workflow in, say, 2028 or 2029? It has to be 2026 or... What exactly? There is literally no hurry. You're using the equivalent of the first portable CD-player in the 80s: it was huge, clunky, had hiccups, had a huge battery attached to it. It was shiny though, for those who find new things shiny. Others are waiting for a portable CD player that is slim, that buffers, that works fine. And you're saying that people won't be able to learn how to put a CD in a slim CD player because they didn't use a clunky one first.

simonw 9mo ago
I think getting proficient at using coding agents effectively takes a few months of practice. It's also a skill that compounds over time, so if you have two years of experience with them you'll be able to use them more effectively than someone with two months of experience. In that respect, they're just normal technology. A Python programmer with two years of Python experience will be more effective than a programmer with two months of Python.
jasonfarnon 9mo ago
"But really where is the hurry?" It just depends on why you're programming. For many of us not learning and using up to date products leads to a disadvantage relative to our competition. I personally would very much rather go back to a world without AI, but we're forced to adapt. I didn't like when pagers/cell phones came out either, but it became clear very quickly not having one put me at a disadvantage at work.
vidarh 9mo ago
> Nobody is sleeping. I'm using LLMs daily to help me in simple coding tasks. That is sleeping. > But really where is the hurry? At this point not a few weeks go by without the next best thing since sliced bread to come out. Why would I bother "learning" (and there's really nothing to learn here) some tool/workflow that is already outdated by the time it comes out? You're jumping to conclusions that haven't been justified by any of the development in this space. The learning compounds. > Do you honestly think a developer not using AI won't be able to adapt to a LLM workflow in, say, 2028 or 2029? It has to be 2026 or... What exactly? They will, but they'll be competing against people with 2-3 more years of experience in understanding how to leverage these tools.

avereveard 9mo ago

Also new haiku. Not as smart but lighting fast, I've it review code changes impact or if i need a wide but shallow change done I've it scan the files and create a change plan. Saves a lot of time waiting for claude or codex to get their bearing.

klaussilveira 9mo ago

I made a similar comment on a different thread, but I think it also fits here: I think the disconnect between engineers is due to their own context. If you work with frontend applications, specially React/React Native/HTML/Mobile, your experience with LLMs is completely different than the experience of someone working with OpenGL, io_uring, libev and other lower level stuff. Sure, Opus 4.5 can one shot Windows utilities and full stack apps, but can't implement a simple shadowing algorithm from a 2003 paper in C++, GLFW, GLAD: https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~uffe/soft_gfxhw2003.pdf https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~uffe/soft_gfxhw2003.pdf Codex/Claude Code are terrible with C++. It also can't do Rust really well, once you get to the meat of it. Not sure why that is, but they just spit out nonsense that creates more work than it helps me. It also can't one shot anything complete, even though I might feed him the entire paper that explains what the algorithm is supposed to do. Try to do some OpenGL or Vulkan with it, without using WebGPU or three.js. Try it with real code, that all of us have to deal with every day. SDL, Vulkan RHI, NVRHI. Very frustrating. Try it with boost, or cmake, or taskflow. It loses itself constantly, hallucinates which version it is working on and ignores you when you provide actual pointers to documentation on the repo. I've also recently tried to get Opus 4.5 to move the Job system from Doom 3 BFG to the original codebase. Clean clone of dhewm3, pointed Opus to the BFG Job system codebase, and explained how it works. I have also fed it the Fabien Sanglard code review of the job system: https://fabiensanglard.net/doom3_bfg/threading.php https://fabiensanglard.net/doom3_bfg/threading.php We are not sleeping on it, we are actually waiting for it to get actually useful. Sure, it can generate a full stack admin control panel in JS for my PostgreSQL tables, but is that really "not normal"? That's basic.

wild_egg 9mo ago
I've had Opus 4.5 hand rolling CUDA kernels and writing a custom event loop on io_uring lately and both were done really well. Need to set up the right feedback loops so it can test its work thoroughly but then it flies.
- jaggederest 9mo ago
  Yeah I've handed it a naive scalar implementation and said "Make this use SIMD for Mac Silicon / NEON" and it just spits out a working implementation that's 3-6x faster and passes the tests, which are binary exact specifications.

andrekandre 9mo ago

> we have another Claude Code agent that does a full PR review, following a detailed markdown checklist we’ve written for it. (if you know) how is that compared to coderabbit? i'm seriously looking for something better rn...

megalomanu 9mo ago
Never tried coderabbit, just because this is already good enough with Claude Code. It helped us to catch dozens of important issues we wouldn't have caught. We gave some instructions in the CLAUDE.md doc in the repository - with including a nice personalized roast of the engineer that did the review in the intro and conclusion to make it fun! :) Basically, when you do a "create PR" from your Claude Code, it will help you getting your Linear ticket (or creating one if missing), ask you some important questions (like: what tests have you done?), create the PR on Github, request the reviewers, and post a "Auto Review" message with your credentials. It's not an actual review per se but this is enough for our small team.
- andrekandre 9mo ago
  thanks for the reply, yea we have a claude.md file, but coderabbit doesn't seem to pick it up or ignore it... hmmm wish we could try out claude code.
  - tinodb 9mo ago
    Codex is even better in my experience at reviewing. You can find the prompt it uses in the repo

winterbloom 9mo ago

Didn't feel like reading all this so I shortened it! sorry! I shortened it for anyone else that might need it ---- Software engineers are sleeping on Claude Code agents. By teaching it your conventions, you can automate your entire workflow: Custom Skills: Generates code matching your UI library and API patterns. Quality Ops: Automates ESLint, doc syncing, and E2E coverage audits. Agentic Reviews: Performs deep PR checks against custom checklists. Smart Triage: Pre-analyzes tickets to give devs a head start. Check out the showcase repo to see these patterns in action.

gjvc 9mo ago
you are part of the problem

majormajor 9mo ago

All of these things work very well IMO in a professional context. Especially if you're in a place where a lot of time was spent previously revising PRs for best practices, etc, even for human-submitted code, then having the LLM do that for you that saves a bunch of time. Most humans are bad at following those super-well. There's a lot of stuff where I'm pretty sure I'm up to at least 2x speed now. And for things like making CLI tools or bash scripts, 10x-20x. But in terms of "the overall output of my day job in total", probably more like 1.5x. But I think we will need a couple major leaps in tooling - probably deterministic tooling, not LLM tooling - before anyone could responsibly ship code nobody has ever read in situations with millions of dollars on the line (which is different from vibe-coding something that ends up making millions - that's a low-risk-high-reward situation, where big bets on doing things fast make sense. if you're already making millions, dramatic changes like that can become high-risk-low-reward very quickly. In those companies, "I know that only touching these files is 99.99% likely to be completely safe for security-critical functionality" and similar "obvious" intuition makes up for the lack of ability to exhaustively test software in a practical way (even with fuzzers and things), and "i didn't even look at the code" is conceding responsibility to a dangerous degree there.)

chandureddyvari 9mo ago

Came across official anthropic repo on gh actions very relevant to what you mentioned. Your idea on scheduled doc updation using llm is brilliant, I’m stealing this idea. https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code-action

jdthedisciple 9mo ago

I'm curious: With that much Claude Code usage, does that put your monthly Anthropic bill above $1000/mo?

BatteryMountain 9mo ago

The crazy part is, once you have it setup and adapted your workflow, you start to notice all sorts of other "small" things: claude can call ssh and do system admin tasks. It works amazingly well. I have 3 VM's, which depends on each other (proxmox with openwrt, adguard, unbound), and claude can prove to me that my dns chains works perfectly, my firewalls are perfect etc as claude can ssh into each. Setting up services, diagnosing issues, auditing configs... you name it. Just awesome. claude can call other sh scripts on the machine, so over time, you can create a bunch of scripts that lets claude one shot certain tasks that would normally eat tokens. It works great. One script per intention - don't have a script do more than one thing. claude can call the compiler, run the debug executable and read the debug logs.. in real time. So claude can read my android apps debug stream via adb.. or my C# debug console because claude calls the compiler, not me. Just ask it to do it and it will diagnose stuff really quickly. It can also analyze your db tables (give it readonly sql access), look at the application code and queries, and diagnose performance issues. The opportunities are endless here. People need to wake up to this.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
theshrike79 9mo ago
I have a /fix-ci-build slash command that instructs Claude how to use `gh` to get the latest build from that specific project's Github Actions and get the logs for the build In addition there are instructions on how and where to push the possible fixes and how to check the results. I've yet to encounter a build failure it couldn't fix automatically.
vidarh 9mo ago
> claude can call ssh and do system admin tasks Claude set up a Raspberry Pi with a display and conference audio device for me to use as an Alexa replacement tied to Home Assistant. I gave it an ssh key and gave it root. Then I told it what I wanted, and it did. It asked for me to confirm certain things, like what I could see on screen, whether I could hear the TTS etc. (it was a bit of a surprise when it was suddenly talking to me while I was minding my own business). It configured everything, while keeping a meticulous log that I can point it at if I want to set up another device, and eventually turn into a runbook if I need to.

dominicrose 9mo ago

Use Claude Code... to do what? There are multiple layers of people involved in the decision process and they only come up with a few ideas every now and then. Nothing I can't handle. AI helps but it doesn't have to be an agent. I'm not saying there aren't use cases for agents, just that it's normal that most software engineers are sleeping on it.

philipwhiuk 9mo ago

I was expecting a showcase to showcase what you've done with it, not just another person's attempt at instructing an AI to follow instructions.

ps 9mo ago

OK, I am gonna be the guy and put my skin in the game here. I kind of get the hype, but the experience with e.g. Claude Code (or Github Copilot previously and others as weel) has so far been pretty unreliable. I have Django project with 50 kLOC and it is pretty capable of understanding the architecture, style of coding, naming of variables, functions etc. Sometimes it excels on tasks like "replicate this non-trivial functionality for this other model and update the UI appropriately" and leaves me stunned. Sometimes it solves for me tedious and labourous "replace this markdown editor with something modern, allowing fullscreen edits of content" and does annoying mistake that only visual control shows and is not capable to fix it after 5 prompts. I feel as I am becoming tester more than a developer and I do not like the shift. Especially when I do not like to tell someone he did an obvious mistake and should fix it - it seems I do not care if it is human or AI, I just do not like incompetence I guess. Yesterday I had to add some parameters to very simple Falcon project and found out it has not been updated for several months and won't build due to some pip issues with pymssql. OK, this is really marginal sub-project so I said - let's migrate it to uv and let's not get hands dirty and let the Claude do it. He did splendidly but in the Dockerfile he missed the "COPY server.py /data/" while I asked him to change the path... Build failed, I updated the path myself and moved on. And then you listen to very smart guys like Karpathy who rave about Tab, Tab, Tab, while not understanding the language or anything about the code they write. Am I getting this wrong? I am really far far away from letting agents touch my infrastructure via SSH, access managed databases with full access privileges etc. and dread the day one of my silly customers asks me to give their agent permission to managed services. One might say the liability should then be shifted, but at the end of the day, humans will have to deal with the damage done. My customer who uses all the codebase I am mentioning here asked me, if there is a way to provide "some AI" with item GTINs and let it generate photos, descriptions, etc. including metadata they handcrafted and extracted for years from various sources. While it looks like nice idea and for them the possibility of decreasing the staff count, I caught the feeling they do not care about the data quality anymore or do not understand the problems the are brining upon them due to errors nobody will catch until it is too late. TL;DR: I am using Opus 4.5, it helps a lot, I have to keep being (very) cautious. Wake up call 2026? Rather like waking up from hallucination.

lfliosdjf 9mo ago

Why dont I see any streams building apps as quickly as they say? Just HYpe

gjvc 9mo ago

> (used voice to text then had claude reword, I am lazy and not gonna hand write it all for yall sorry!) take my downvote as hard as you can. this sort of thing is awfully off-putting.

kaydub 9mo ago

I'm at the point where I say fuck it, let them sleep. The tech industry just went through an insane hiring craze and is now thinning out. This will help to separate the chaff from the wheat. I don't know why any company would want to hire "tech" people who are terrified of tech and completely obstinate when it comes to utilizing it. All the people I see downplaying it take a half-assed approach at using it then disparage it when it's not completely perfect. I started tinkering with LLMs in 2022. First use case, speak in natural english to the llm, give it a json structure, have it decipher the natural language and fill in that json structure (vacation planning app, so you talk to it about where/how you want to vacation and it creates the structured data in the app). Sometimes I'd use it for minor coding fixes (copy and paste a block into chatgpt, fix errors or maybe just ideation). This was all personal project stuff. At my job we got LLM access in mid/late 2023. Not crazy useful, but still was helpful. We got claude code in 2024. These days I only have an IDE open so I can make quick changes (like bumping up a config parameter, changing a config bool, etc.). I almost write ZERO code now. I usually have 3+ claude code sessions open. On my personal projects I'm using Gemini + codex primarily (since I have a google account and chatgpt $20/month account). When I get throttled on those I go to claude and pay per token. I'll often rip through new features, projects, ideas with one agent, then I have another agent come through and clean things up, look for code smells, etc. I don't allow the agents to have full unfettered control, but I'd say 70%+ of the time I just blindly accept their changes. If there are problems I can catch them on the MR/PR. I agree about the low hanging fruit and I'm constantly shocked at the sheer amount of FUD around LLMs. I want to generalize, like I feel like it's just the mid/jr level devs that speak poorly about it, but there's definitely senior/staff level people I see (rarely, mind you) that also don't like LLMs. I do feel like the online sentiment is slowly starting to change though. One thing I've noticed a lot of is that when it's an anonymous post it's more likely to downplay LLMs. But if I go on linkedin and look at actual good engineers I see them praising LLMs. Someone speaking about how powerful the LLMs are - working on sophisticated projects at startups or FAANG. Someone with FUD when it comes to LLM - web dev out of Alabama. I could go on and on but I'm just ranting/venting a little. I guess I can end this by saying that in my professional/personal life 9/10 of the top level best engineers I know are jumping on LLMs any chance they get. Only 1/10 talks about AI slop or bullshit like that.

9mo ago

ndesaulniers 9mo ago

Thanks for the example! There's a lot (of boilerplate?) here that I don't understand. Does anyone have good references for catching up to speed what's the purpose of all of these files in the demo?

maxkfranz 9mo ago

> Once you’ve got Claude Code set up, you can point it at your codebase, have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices, and refine everything until it’s basically operating like a super-powered teammate. The real unlock is building a solid set of reusable “skills” plus a few agents for the stuff you do all the time. I agree with this, but I haven't needed to use any advanced features to get good results. I think the simple approach gets you most of the benefits. Broadly, I just have markdown files in the repo written for a human dev audience that the agent can also use. Basically: - README.md with a quick start section for devs, descriptions of all build targets and tests, etc. Normal stuff. - AGENTS.md (only file that's not written for people specifically) that just describes the overall directory structure and has a short step of instructions for the agent: (1) Always read the readme before you start. (2) Always read the relevant design docs before you start. (3) Always run the linter, a build, and tests whenever you make code changes. - docs/*.md that contain design docs, architecture docs, and user stories, just text. It's important to have these resources anyway, agent or no. As with human devs, the better the docs/requirements the better the results.

vidarh 9mo ago
I'd really encourage you to try using agents for tasks that are repeatable and/or wordy but where most of the words are not relevant for ongoing understanding. It's a tiny step further, and sub-agents provide a massive benefit the moment you're ready to trust the model even a little bit (relax permissions to not have it prompt you for every little thing; review before committing rather than on every file edit) because they limit what goes into the top level context, and can let the model work unassisted for far longer. I now regularly have it run for hours at a time without stopping. Running and acting on output from the linter is absolutely an example of that which matters even for much shorter runs. There's no reason to have all the lint output "polluting" the top level context, nor to have the steps the agent needs to take to fix linter issues that can't be auto-fixed by the linter itself. The top level agent should only need to care about whether the linter run passed or failed (and should know it needs to re-run and possibly investigate if it fails). Just type /agents, select "Create new agent" and describe a task you often do, and then forget about it (or ask Claude to make changes to it for you)

nijave 9mo ago

I still struggle with these things being _too_ good at generating code. They have a tendency to add abstractions, classes, wrappers, factories, builders to things that didn't really need all that. I find they spit out 6 files worth of code for something that really only needed 2-3 and I'm spending time going back through simplifying. There are times those extra layers are worth it but it seems LLMs have a bias to add them prematurely and overcomplicate things. You then end up with extra complexity you didn't need.

profstasiak 9mo ago

I use claude code all the time, but never allow it to edit my code. It proposes spaghetti code almost 80% of time