Live data from Hacker News

How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

boristane.com

401–410 of 630 posts

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#401
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reproducing experimental results across models and vendors is trivial and cheap nowadays.

Not if anthropic goes further in obfuscating the output of claude code.

Why would you test implementation details? Test what's delivered, not how it's delivered. The thinking portion, synthetized or not, is merely implementation.

The resulting artefact, that's what is worth testing.

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Haven't seen a single useful thing produced by this garbage process you describe By using it first-hand or by a colleague? And useful to whom, you, or the person writing it? There are plenty of people in this thread who have actually used this "garbage process," myself included, to produce stuff we, and our colleagues, find is useful.

[flagged]

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#403

I just use Jesse’s “superpowers” plugin. It does all of this but also steps you through the design and gives you bite sized chunks and you make architecture decisions along the way. Far better than making big changes to an already established plan.

Link for those interested: https://claude.com/plugins/superpowers

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#404

I just use Jesse’s “superpowers” plugin. It does all of this but also steps you through the design and gives you bite sized chunks and you make architecture decisions along the way. Far better than making big changes to an already established plan.

https://github.com/obra/superpowers

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't seen a single useful thing produced by this garbage process you describe By using it first-hand or by a colleague? And useful to whom, you, or the person writing it? There are plenty of people in this thread who have actually used this "garbage process," myself included, to produce stuff we, and our colleagues, find is useful.

[flagged]

This response would be appropriate if the process we used only worked once.

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't seen a single useful thing produced by this garbage process you describe By using it first-hand or by a colleague? And useful to whom, you, or the person writing it? There are plenty of people in this thread who have actually used this "garbage process," myself included, to produce stuff we, and our colleagues, find is useful.

[flagged]

These kinds of attacks lead nowhere.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#407
post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What genuinely new thing have you produced?

Well I'm actually producing, not having an llm do things for me and frying my brain in the process. If you're building things with the process described above you're not producing anything, Dalio or Altman's GPUs are, you're simply just a slot machine user.

Have fun paying for "Think for me Saas".

2025-2026: The year everyone became the mental equivalent of obese and let their brain atrophy. There are no shortcuts in life that don't come at a huge cost, remember how everyone forgot how to navigate without a maps app, that's going to be you with writing code/reading code/thinking about code.

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#408
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I did bounce off these tools a year ago. They just didn't work for me 60% of the time. I learned a bit in that initial experience though and walked away with some tasks ChatGPT could replace in my workflow. Mainly replacing scripts and reviewing single files or functions. Fast forward to today and I tried the tools again--specifically Claude Code--about a week ago. I'm blown away. I've reproduced some tool…

> The output is more or less what I'd be writing as a principal engineer. I certainly hope this is not true, because then you're not competent for that role. Claude Code writes an absolutely incredible amount of unecessary and superfluous comments, it's makes asinine mistakes like forgetting to update logic in multiple places. It'll gladly drop the entire database when changing column formats, just as an example.

I’m not sure what you're doing or if you’ve tried the tools recently but this isn’t even close to my experience.

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#409
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its ai written though, the tells are in pretty much every paragraph.

I don’t think it’s that big a red flag anymore. Most people use ai to rewrite or clean up content, so I’d think we should actually evaluate content for what it is rather than stop at “nah it’s ai written.”

> I don’t think it’s that big a red flag anymore. Most people use ai to rewrite or clean up content, so I’d think we should actually evaluate content for what it is rather than stop at “nah it’s ai written.”

Unfortunately, there's a lot of people trying to content-farm with LLMs; this means that whatever style they default to, is automatically suspect of being a slice of "dead internet" rather than some new human discovery.

I won't rule out the possibility that even LLMs, let alone other AI, can help with new discoveries, but they are definitely better at writing persuasively than they are at being inventive, which means I am forced to use "looks like LLM" as proxy for both "content farm" and "propaganda which may work on me", even though some percentage of this output won't even be LLM and some percentage of what is may even be both useful and novel.

Re: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

#410

The author seems to think they've hit upon something revolutionary... They've actually hit upon something that several of us have evolved to naturally. LLM's are like unreliable interns with boundless energy. They make silly mistakes, wander into annoying structural traps, and have to be unwound if left to their own devices. It's like the genie that almost pathologically misinterprets your wishes. So, how do you solv…

It feels like retracing the history of software project management. The post is quite waterfall-like. Writing a lot of docs and specs upfront then implementing. Another approach is to just YOLO (on a new branch) make it write up the lessons afterwards, then start a new more informed try and throw away the first. Or any other combo. For me what works well is to ask it to write some code upfront to verify its assumptio…

'The post is quite waterfall-like. Writing a lot of docs and specs upfront then implementing' - It's only waterfall if the specs cover the entire system or app. If it's broken up into sub-systems or vertical slices, then it's much more Agile or Lean.
Post reply on HN