I've been using Claude to work on a medium-sized (100+kLoc) codebase, and it's a great productivity multiplier. Putting hours into creating a good AGENTS file is more improved results a lot. I find that over time it picks up the codebase quite well. Tedious tasks that would take a day are now a matter of a few prompts.

Still... I'm not ready to give it more autonomy. Even as it gets high-level things quite well, I still look at the code, give feedback, and have 3-4 rounds of tweaks until I'm happy with it, and also happy that I stil feel I have a good handle on the codebase.

▲

snarfy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Try to quantify those 3-4 rounds of tweaks into a set of rules to put into your AGENTS. Instead of iterating, have it start over from AGENTS file and see if it's correct now.

▲

alfiedotwtf an hour ago | parent [-]

Ngl, that’s gold right here. I’ve been trying to automate my sessions, and what I’ve found cool is that you can ask Claude about how to improve on how to ask Claude things, and from there ask Claude to iterate on your session cycles

	▲	moron4hire 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		In Soviet Russia the AI prompt you.

▲

alexwwang 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Understandable. You don’t want to lose control to your codebase and don’t trust LLM is competent in handling that fully.

▲

lukan 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No. Because they still hallucinate at times. Confuse things. Forget things. Or none of the above, as it is anthropomorphizing, but the result is the same. They can make incredible working one shots, you start to trust them, then you trust too much and .. feel the result.

	▲	alexwwang 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. I am fighting with the disobeyance of LLM on working through my pipeline commands. I believe these violations are caused by its hallucinations. So I am still developing a mechanical system to monitor agents’ behaviors automatically. I believe these routines and monitors will play as a set of scaffold to keep leading the LLM on the right way all the time.