every other day i see a tweet like -built this whole feature in 2 hours with claude code- and the screenshot is some slick UI and 200 lines of generated code and a bunch of fire emojis. and i love that energy but also that is not the workflow im running and i suspect its not really theirs either when its something that has to actually ship heres what mine actually looks like for a typical feature: claude code generates the implementation. i read through it, not in --dangerously-skip-permissions way, like actually reading. usually catches one or two things where it confidently did the wrong thing or pulled in a pattern we dont use in our codebase. fix those before pushing so i just push the PR. coderabbit runs automatically and posts review comments, mostly catches the stuff i would have written “also check x and y” instructions for in my prompt, security patterns, type issues, common bugs. fix those then i ping a human reviewer. and this is the part that hasnt sped up at all, the actual architectural review still takes a senior 20-30 minutes per PR. they push back on choices i made, sometimes i push back on theirs, we land on something so 2 hours of generation time becomes more like 4 hours by the time the PR is actually merged. which is still fast. but its not magic. and importantly its still SLOWER than the senior reviewer’s capacity, so we have queues now in a way we didnt 6 months ago the part i dont see in those flex tweets is the verification cost. claude code is genuinely incredible at the writing part but writing was never really the bottleneck on a working team, review was. AI made the writing 5x faster and review the exact same speed it always was. so the math has shifted in this specific way its just we missing it submitted by /u/minimal-salt
Originally posted by u/minimal-salt on r/ClaudeCode