Curious how people here are regression-testing Claude Code workflows that depend on project rules, skills, hooks, MCP servers, or multi-step agent behavior. One good transcript doesn’t prove the workflow is reliable, but exact golden transcript diffs feel too brittle because Claude can take a different path and still do the right thing. I’m leaning toward scoring must-have signals instead: right rule/skill activated, required context read before editing, forbidden paths untouched, expected side effects happened, final checks passed. Disclosure: I work on Runme, and we wrote up our current approach here: https://runme.dev/blog/runme-eval How are you testing this today: golden transcripts? CI fixtures? eval harnesses? what’s your tool stack? submitted by /u/sourishkrout
Originally posted by u/sourishkrout on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.