101–110 of 166 posts
I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.
I noticed this! CLAUDE.md is one of my go-to places if I want to read documentation, now. It's usually much more to the point and more accurate than whatever was intended for humans.
I am not convinced that just adding llm summaries to a commit will have long term value, especially if you don’t keep the ‘why’ separated from what is probably going to be a verbose how.
But I would be happy to be shown wrong here.
I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.
I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.
Yup. Claude will rtfm. Most humans won't.
I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.
I've written so much documentation over the years, and humans always come and ask me questions that the documentation answers, but never ever read it.
When someone asks me a question that is or should be documented, I like to ask where they looked for it (link or search query). * Sometimes, this prompt is enough for them to find the answer. * Sometimes, they tell me a spot that makes sense to them, and I make it have the answer. (Maybe just by adding a cross-reference.) * If they refuse to look at the docs, I can't help them.
You got very good answers to any original questions, though you should start by showing where you searched for answers already.
They hated "do it for me" kind of requests that usually looked like somebody asking you to do their homework assignment. I even got called out on it once, but could happily reply that I'm actually just messing with my system as a hobby.
One time I had a "do it for me" request.
I've run a sed command which appended sth.bak to every file of some type on, but accidently made it execute on all files on the system. They quickly gave me a one liner to fix my machine (a VM, but it took long to set up). However, when after fixing the system, I asked for explanation of the xargs command that was used there, I instantly got sent off to the FAQ with a number.
Some people like to brag about how productive they have become with AI, but I see them spending a few hours a week adjusting which model to use, trying the new shiny harness or writing Claude skills. Are you really more productive if instead of coding you are spending your time tweaking the AI to do what you want?
I ran /insights on Claude Code and it said code review was my most requested activity. I turned it into a skill that autodiscovers the project's structure and launches a huge matrix of parallel critic agents, each focusing on one specific area of the codebase and a quality like correctness, maintainability, security, etc. Supports file system style journaling to deal with subscription usage limits and interruptions.
Took maybe a few hours to fine tune this and then I applied it to all of my projects, and it's actually absurd how productive it is. This is basically an infinite GitHub issue generator. I run it and then start checking off the items in order to definitely improve the status quo. Review again, fix again. Just loop this until zero issues found. The only question is whether to fix the issues myself or tell Claude to do it. I still do it myself in the projects I really care about.