Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Code Checkpoints

claude-checkpoints.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#32

Post by adds68 »

Great idea, but i've set it up and the app is pretty unusable for me, there is some sort of blocking process which runs every few seconds and freezes the UI, so you can interact with it properly

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#34

Post by winter_blue »

fluidcruft wrote: post #15
mhast wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git won't catch new files the agent is adding. To get around that you can of course always add all new files, but then you'll potentially have your repo polluted with a bunch of temporary scratch files instead. You can typically go back and edit git history. But it will require force push and breaking changes. And a few sacrifices to ensure that it doesn't make a mistake because then your repo is potentially broken.…

You could also create a branch, save your intermediates there, and then squash merge when you are ready.

Yup, that's what I do. Even for personal projects, with the flurry of changes Claude/other AI assistants make, a branch makes it easier for me to compare changes.

Often I have a branch with multiple commits on it, with each commit corresponding to a message in a conversation with AI on Cursor trying to get a new feature built.

In the end, I can diff the branch against the main branch, and see the sum total of changes the AI agent has made.

Maybe edit/improve manually on my own afterwards. And then, merge.

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#35

Post by CuriouslyC »

endymion-light wrote: post #27
CuriouslyC wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

T shirt estimation doesn't make any sense for AI dev, not one bit. They get epic long features done in hours, and all the shirt sizing comes from cases where the agent circles the drain and needs to be guided, which isn't predictable. The shirt sizes now are for manual acceptance testing.

My experience with AI tooling is that while it's really useful and great - I don't think i've ever seen a LLM complete an epic long feature well full stop. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely improved my workflow and efficiency, but you must be winning at roulette if the model is performing well on anything that can't be googled and implemented witihn a similar amount of time. unless it's claude, where even simple st…

If you go back and forth with chatgpt/gemini on architectural details first, then get chatgpt to produce a hyper detailed spec (like, almost a program claude can execute), you can get claude to run for 2-3 hours at a shot (particularly with a hook to prevent early stopping). Require >85% test coverage, and bake very clear e2e test paths into the spec, and Claude can come surprisingly close to one shotting big things.

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#37

Post by neutronicus »

heeton wrote: post #21
Cheer2171 wrote: post #19

If Claude Code LLMs are reportedly so good, then why is the Claude Code CLI such a buggy, messy, featureless disaster? Are they dogfooding?

Eesh, a disaster? I use it daily to do some pretty impressive things. Wouldn’t call it a disaster.

Some of the user interaction borders on "disaster" IMO. One puts up with it because it's not a show-stopper for the core value proposition of the software (an LLM agent completing tasks for you), and the core value proposition of the software is really valuable.

The noticeable issues are (1) unpredictable scrolling of the terminal window and (2) a super-buggy text box for inputting the prompt.

In particular if I mash the arrow key too fast while moving around and editing the prompt CC and my terminal's idea of where the cursor is get out of sync somehow and it's tricky to get them re-aligned, and I can't actually input text until I do. The vim mode lets me bypass this but it has its own bugs and is missing a ton of features that I expect. Visual selection in particular seems to be missing? Not entirely certain what things I'm used to are stock vim features vs Spacemacs features but I'm pretty sure visual mode is the former. Regardless, only the very basics seem to actually work. "w", "b", "e", "cw/b/e", "dw/b/e", "esc/i".

So for the most part I actually just edit CC prompts in emacs and paste them.

I resort to this workaround because I am very motivated to use Claude Code. For a less-useful piece of software I would probably just give up.

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#38

Post by endymion-light »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #35
endymion-light wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience with AI tooling is that while it's really useful and great - I don't think i've ever seen a LLM complete an epic long feature well full stop. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely improved my workflow and efficiency, but you must be winning at roulette if the model is performing well on anything that can't be googled and implemented witihn a similar amount of time. unless it's claude, where even simple st…

If you go back and forth with chatgpt/gemini on architectural details first, then get chatgpt to produce a hyper detailed spec (like, almost a program claude can execute), you can get claude to run for 2-3 hours at a shot (particularly with a hook to prevent early stopping). Require >85% test coverage, and bake very clear e2e test paths into the spec, and Claude can come surprisingly close to one shotting big things.

Fair enough! I'll need to give it a try - I tend to mostly use these agents as idea testers as have found them limiting beyond those concepts, but it sounds like they may be quite useful using this spec, thanks!

Re: Claude Code Checkpoints

#39

Post by michaelmior »

emilecantin wrote: post #11

I tend to have auto-accept on for edits, and once Claude is done with a task I'll just use git to review and stage the changes, sometimes commit them when it's a logical spot for it. I wouldn't want to have Claude auto-commit everything it does (because I sometimes revert its changes), nor would I want to YOLO it without any git repo... This seems like a nice tool, but for someone who has a very different workflow.

As someone who doesn't use CC, auto-commit seems like it would be the easiest way to manage changes. It's easy enough to revert or edit a commit if I don't like what happened.
Post reply on HN