My setup’s the biggest it’s ever been. Skills, subagents, hooks, a CLAUDE.md I’ve rewritten too many times. None of that is what makes the output good. The setup multiplies whatever judgment you walked in with. If you know what a correct auth flow looks like, ten skills make you fast. If you don’t, ten skills make you fast at shipping something you can’t judge. Judging it doesn’t mean reading every line, which would throw away the speed I’m here for. It means knowing what pattern Claude reached for and whether it fits this case. The test I fail most often is the small one. Claude hands me a diff, I feel a little hit of relief, and that’s the moment I’m most likely to merge something wrong. Asking “is this right?” doesn’t help, because it says yes. At work the sentence after something breaks is usually that the model got it wrong. What happened is that the model proposed something and a person took it on trust. It doesn’t take the angry call, and nobody asks it why it approved this. Has anyone here said in a postmortem that the model was fine and they never understood what they shipped? submitted by /u/ilien-dev
Originally posted by u/ilien-dev on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.