3 ms·

How do you manage your frustration in these interactions? I often find myself getting pissed off

by brap 25d ago

ceejayoz 25d ago
The goal of my personal harness is to get to the point where I never actually talk to Claude directly for that very reason.
- selestify 25d ago
  Is your harness available for install somewhere? 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?
  - ceejayoz 25d ago
    It's extremely bespoke. 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.
    - mrheosuper 24d ago
      So instead of talking directly, you talk indirectly through ticket ?
      - ceejayoz 24d ago
        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.
        selestify 24d ago
        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?
        ceejayoz 19d ago
        A combination of guardrails - the spec stage is required to give me a mockup for UI work, it has to make failing tests for bug fixes, etc. - and adversarial reviews ensuring the lazy fuckers don't just give up half way through. 20-30 agents probably touch an average ticket, but I sign off about twice.
gonzalohm 25d ago
I stop using AI and do the job manually. I normally give AI one shot at the task. If it fails then it's not saving me any time
- DarmokTanagra 25d ago
  [dead]
Sohcahtoa82 25d ago
If you know how to write it manually, then do it. 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.

How do you manage your frustration in these interactions? I often find myself getting pissed off

by brap 25d ago

How do you manage your frustration in these interactions? I often find myself getting pissed off

The goal of my personal harness is to get to the point where I never actually talk to Claude directly for that very reason.

selestify 25d ago
Is your harness available for install somewhere? 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?
- ceejayoz 25d ago
  It's extremely bespoke. 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.
  - mrheosuper 24d ago
    So instead of talking directly, you talk indirectly through ticket ?
    - ceejayoz 24d ago
      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.
      - selestify 24d ago
        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?
        ceejayoz 19d ago
        A combination of guardrails - the spec stage is required to give me a mockup for UI work, it has to make failing tests for bug fixes, etc. - and adversarial reviews ensuring the lazy fuckers don't just give up half way through. 20-30 agents probably touch an average ticket, but I sign off about twice.

gonzalohm 25d ago

I stop using AI and do the job manually. I normally give AI one shot at the task. If it fails then it's not saving me any time

DarmokTanagra 25d ago
[dead]

Sohcahtoa82 25d ago

If you know how to write it manually, then do it. 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.