I have been doing some fairly large things successfully by having similar interactions with Claude that I would with a mid-level engineer. I review the plan, ask a lot of probing questions, look for code smells, and make it produce the work as a small set of stacked commits (thanks jj!). (I.e., “Fix this in the original bad commit if possible.”) I don’t deeply review the code until it’s been through one or two full Claude code-review cycles (which are pretty impressive) and findings are addressed. Then I have it write a review guide to walk me through the code. Then I review the code. No doubt some would argue that I don’t need to do any of that, but I disagree, based on the stuff that gets fixed in the process. https://lobste.rs/c/yso11i
