How do you decide what to let Claude Code fully own vs. review line by line?
by•
Solo builder here, using Cursor + Claude Code as basically my whole engineering team. Six months in I still don't have a good instinct for this: some days I let it just run with a whole feature and barely glance at the diff, other days I'm rereading every line like it's a junior dev's first PR.
Right now my rough rule is billing/auth code gets the paranoid review, UI and analytics panels get the "looks fine, ship it" treatment. But that's just a gut feeling, not a real system.
Anyone here have an actual framework for this, or is everyone just winging it based on vibes and how burned they've been before?
79 views
Replies
billing/auth strict, everything else looser is basically my rule too. the axis I'd add: anything that touches how a number gets computed (not just displayed) gets read line by line, because a wrong inference there looks totally fine in the demo and only shows up days later as a quietly bad output. has the paranoid-review code or the ship-it code actually burned you more so far?
my split is less about which files and more about whether I can verify the output cheaply. UI I can eyeball in five seconds so I let it run. anything touching model config or quantization I review line by line, not because it looks risky but because it compiles fine and looks totally reasonable while being numerically wrong, and I won't catch that without actually running the eval.
I don't follow any framework to review the code but when creating a new project i just define the way it will write the code. And define things clearly in Claude.md, and you can have design.md for UI design. Till now I didn't face any issue. Keep a checklist and ask claude itself to review against that while raising PR. It helped me alot.