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

How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and execution

boristane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 630 posts

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

#321

Post by ffsm8 »

ratsimihah wrote: post #295
ffsm8 wrote: 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.

It is to me, because it indicates the author didn't care about the topic. The only thing they cared about is to write an "insightful" article about using llms. Hence this whole thing is basically linked-in resume improvement slop.

Not worth interacting with, imo

Also, it's not insightful whatsoever. It's basically a retelling of other articles around the time Claude code was released to the public (March-August 2025)

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

#322

Post by gary17the »

> Read deeply, write a plan, annotate the plan until it’s right, then let Claude execute the whole thing without stopping, checking types along the way.

As others have already noted, this workflow is exactly what the Google Antigravity agent (based off Visual Studio Code) has been created for. Antigravity even includes specialized UI for a user to annotate selected portions of an LLM-generated plan before iterating it.

One significant downside to Antigravity I have found so far is the fact that even though it will properly infer a certain technical requirement and clearly note it in the plan it generates (for example, "this business reporting column needs to use a weighted average"), it will sometimes quietly downgrade such a specialized requirement (for example, to a non-weighted average), without even creating an appropriate "WARNING:" comment in the generated code. Especially so when the relevant codebase already includes a similar, but not exactly appropriate API. My repetitive prompts to ALWAYS ask about ANY implementation ambiguities WHATSOEVER go unanswered.

From what I gather Claude Code seems to be better than other agents at always remembering to query the user about implementation ambiguities, so maybe I will give Claude Code a shot over Antigravity.

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

#323

Post by pmg101 »

ratsimihah wrote: post #295
ffsm8 wrote: 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 judge content for being AI written, I judge it for the content itself (just like with code).

However I do find the standard out-of-the-box style very grating. Call it faux-chummy linkedin corporate workslop style.

Why don't people give the llm a steer on style? Either based on your personal style or at least on a writer whose style you admire. That should be easier.

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

#325

Post by petesergeant »

vishnugupta wrote: post #269
chaboud wrote: post #241

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…

Revolutionary or not it was very nice of the author to make time and effort to share their workflow. For those starting out using Claude Code it gives a structured way to get things done bypassing the time/energy needed to “hit upon something that several of us have evolved to naturally”.

Here's mine! https://github.com/pjlsergeant/moarcode

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

#326

Post by optimalsolver »

fragmede wrote: post #18
haolez wrote: post #12

> Notice the language: “deeply”, “in great details”, “intricacies”, “go through everything”. This isn’t fluff. Without these words, Claude will skim. It’ll read a file, see what a function does at the signature level, and move on. You need to signal that surface-level reading is not acceptable. This makes no sense to my intuition of how an LLM works. It's not that I don't believe this works, but my mental model doesn…

Yeah, it's definitely a strange new world we're in, where I have to "trick" the computer into cooperating. The other day I told Claude "Yes you can", and it went off and did something it just said it couldn't do!

The little language model that could.

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

#329

Post by alexrezvov »

Cool, the idea of leaving comments directly in the plan never even occurred to me, even though it really is the obvious thing to do.

Do you markup and then save your comments in any way, and have you tried keeping them so you can review the rules and requirements later?

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

#330

Post by xoac »

pmg101 wrote: post #323
ratsimihah wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 judge content for being AI written, I judge it for the content itself (just like with code). However I do find the standard out-of-the-box style very grating. Call it faux-chummy linkedin corporate workslop style. Why don't people give the llm a steer on style? Either based on your personal style or at least on a writer whose style you admire. That should be easier.

Because they think this is good writing. You can’t correct what you don’t have taste for. Most software engineers think that reading books means reading NYT non-fiction bestsellers.
Post reply on HN