I’ve been thinking about this while building a hackathon format with Grevix. We’re running a 24-hour solo hackathon called AfterCode on October 11. The idea is pretty simple: You choose your own problem. You choose your own stack. You have 24 hours to build. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Antigravity, APIs, no-code, traditional development, whatever you want. But at the 8-hour and 16-hour marks, we’re introducing unexpected challenges that can change something fundamental about the project. Maybe the target user changes. Maybe a core feature has to go. Maybe the original use case doesn’t make sense anymore. That’s where I’m curious about Claude Code. The model can probably implement the new requirement. But who decides whether the new requirement is actually worth implementing? That’s the part we’re trying to explore with AfterCode. Human decides → AI executes → situation changes → human adapts → AI executes again. I’m curious about people here who use Claude Code heavily: What kind of change would genuinely force you to rethink your approach instead of simply giving Claude another prompt? We’re keeping the actual Challenge Cards secret until the event. 👀 Disclosure: I’m one of the organizers behind Grevix AfterCode. We’re also exploring ways for developer tools to become part of the actual experiment rather than simply appearing as sponsors. submitted by /u/Significant-Log-4272
Originally posted by u/Significant-Log-4272 on r/ClaudeCode