I use Claude Code to maintain a WordPress site built with Etch and Automatic.css. I define requirements and make decisions; CC implements them. Codex acts as a separate reviewer and files findings as tickets. My setup uses two private Git repos: Project repo: code, Markdown tickets, specifications, ADRs, project-specific skills, and validation scripts. Shared Wiki repo: reusable skills, technical references, and known mistakes organized by language/tool. Skills have short core instructions and optional references. Each task goes through custom /ticket-start and /ticket-done workflows: read relevant context, implement, verify acceptance criteria, update the ticket, record reusable lessons, commit, and push. Larger changes get independent review. I also use Matt Pocock’s skills , mainly TDD and code review. This helps prevent repeated mistakes, but usage feels roughly 2× higher . That isn’t a controlled comparison yet. Initial context only increased from about 81k to 84k tokens , while finishing tasks accounted for 21–51% of estimated cost in a small sample. I suspect the overhead comes from repeated reading, reviews, and updating/validating knowledge across both repos. For people using similar setups: What would you simplify first? How do you keep shared knowledge useful without loading too much context? When does a mistake deserve a permanent rule? Do you review every task independently, or only risky changes? Would you keep custom workflows or use a thinner layer around Matt’s skills? I want to keep reliable verification and reusable knowledge while reducing the cost of the process itself. submitted by /u/ZailCZ
Originally posted by u/ZailCZ on r/ClaudeCode