>The way I review it is to let it finish a PR sized slice and then I review the whole diff in a separate terminal as if it’s a PR from someone else.

Insanely inefficient. It's 10x more productive to watch the thinking traces and edits in real time and steer the model appropriately.

If your workflow is typical no wonder my team members who use claude code are so much less productive.

▲

hamdingers 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Do you never have agents working on multiple tasks in parallel? You'll become much more productive when you figure out how to stop micromanaging.

▲

robben1234 2 days ago | parent [-]

More productive in what way? Letting agents burn tokens to produce garbage output is not productive. And letting teammates read code that wasn't reviewed by a human submitting it also isn't productive.

If I work with one agent / few subagents on one feature I can steer it as soon as I notice it drifting into the direction of waste. This way I only review the total diff 1.5-2 times. And I also don't waste my own mental energy on context switching between tasks agents are producing diffs for in parallel.

	▲	jurgenburgen a day ago \| parent [-]
		> And letting teammates read code that wasn't reviewed by a human submitting it also isn't productive. If that’s what you got from my comment then you need to review it again.

▲

stefan_ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think this is something anyone who has ever read a "thinking trace" would unironically say. Not that you can even see them in Claude.

When thinking first started and you would still see the whole "thinking process", I thought it was a ploy to 10x token use because it was just the most inane bullshit. "But wait, the user is asking me to" in loops.

	▲	satvikpendem 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You can see thinking summary transcripts in Claude Code and Desktop, and they are actually useful because they don't have those sort of thinking loops from the raw tokens.