| ▲ | vunderba 4 hours ago | |||||||
When I find myself in a situation where I’ve been hammering an LLM and it keeps veering down unproductive paths - trying poor solutions or applying fixes that make no difference but eventually we do arrive at the correct answer, the result is often a massive 100+ KB running context. To help mitigate this in the future I'll often prompt:
Then I follow up with:
I then add this summary to either the relevant MD file (CHANGING_CSS_LAYOUTS.md, DATA_PERSISTENCE.md, etc) or more generally to the DISCOVERIES.md file, which is linked from my CLAUDE.md under:
I don't think linking to an entire commit full of errors/failures is necessarily a good idea - feels like it would quickly lead to the proverbial poisoning of the well. | ||||||||
| ▲ | itsgrimetime 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Yep - this has worked well for me too. I do it a little differently: I have a /review-sessions command & a "parse-sessions" skill that tells Claude how to parse the session logs from ~/.claude/projects/, then it classifies the issues and proposes new skills, changes to CLAUDE.md, etc. based on what common issues it saw. I've tried something similar to DISCOVERIES.md (a structured "knowledge base" of assumptions that were proven wrong, things that were tried, etc.) but haven't had luck keeping this from getting filled with obvious things (that the code itself describes) or slightly-incorrect things, or just too large in general. | ||||||||
| ▲ | johnsmith1840 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
When you get stuck in a loop it's best to remove all code back to a point it didn't have problems. If you continue debugging in that hammering failure loop you get TONS of random future bugs. | ||||||||
| ||||||||