We've all spent time -fixing someone's bright idea of a -fix. I'm sceptical of the time saving of applying a -fix before I understand the problem(s).
replyOutsourcing comprehension to a machine is probably gonna cost you more time in the long run.
I don't even bother looking at the code until I've run a code review pass on it. Why waste my time with trivial bug fixes? I find the best way to spend time right now is like:
reply- Defining the issue/ticket, what "success" looks like (if I have a good idea of this), high level approach guidance 50%
- Dispatch agent to work on it 5%
- Occasionally return and nudge agent + send /simplify or /code-review 5%
- Look at the code/session summary, divergences from the plan, ask followup questions 40%
Occasionally yes there is some solution the AI chose that is suboptimal and I would prefer fixed in a different way. Mostly though it's straightforward.
Thank you I will try this!
replyIs there something equivalent when coding in the first place? Eg /code high “prompt”
Are you thinking of the /effort level in Claude Code? I would just go with xhigh as a reasonable default. Most important thing in prompting is specifying what "done" and "success" looks like to you. Ask Claude to help you come up with a well formed request and spend most of your time on that, then paste that into a brand new session.
reply[dead]
reply