Ask Claude to explain the code in depth for you. It's a language model, it's great at taking in obscure code and writing up explanations of how it works in plain English.

You can do this during the previous change phase of course. Just ask "How would one plan this change to the codebase? Could you explain in depth why?" If you're expected to be thoroughly familiar with that code, it makes no sense to skip that step.

▲

saulpw 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is like asking Claude to explain some aspect of physics to you. It'll 'feel' like you understand, but in order to really understand you have to work those annoying problems.

Same with anything. You can read about how to meditate, cook, sew, whatever. But if you only read about something, your mental model is hollow and purely conceptual, having never had to interact with actual reality. Your brain has to work through the problems.

	▲	zozbot234 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> ...in order to really understand you have to work those annoying problems. GP says that they have to come back tomorrow and edit the code to fix something. That's a verification step: if you can do that (even with some effort) you understand why the AI did what it did. This is not some completely new domain where what you wrote would apply very clearly, it's just a codebase that GP is supposed to be familiar with already!

▲

AstroBen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By working in this way you're proactively de-skilling yourself. Do it long enough and you're now replaceable by anyone that can type a prompt.