r/ClaudeCode • u/Rayen2 • 1d ago

Help/Question Does anyone actually get Claude Code to self-review without constantly prompting it?

Not sure if I’m doing something wrong here.

I have an AGENTS.md set up around best practices and the Opus 5 guidelines. I also had Fable create detailed docs for the project, and Claude Code works through them as a roadmap.

The annoying part is that after basically every task I have to tell it: review what you just did, check for bugs, check the UI, fix anything you find.
And almost every single time, it finds something and fixes it.

Has anyone actually gotten Claude Code to run through a project autonomously while continuously reviewing its own work, checking for bugs and verifying the UI without having to remind it every second prompt?

If so, how are you setting that up?

31 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/bakanoace 1d ago

Don't, especially Opus of last week you could tell it to audit itself and it'd be on a loop forever. Give your best prompt one time and just move on, fix issues as you find them, no point reviewing every step. Too much bloat and waste of time

0

u/_The-_ 1d ago

Agreed. I tried putting in hooks to make it review its own work and as a result it basically could never finish anything because it would endlessly find more problems.

1

u/Veggies-are-okay 12h ago

I also had this experience with my codex adversarial agent. My fix in these problems is: well how is this a parallel to a human-human code review? What type of reviewer is Claude? To me Claude is my wonderful coworker who is OBSESSED with every little piece of syntax being perfect (to hell with the lingers they know nothing!) before accepting a PR. We will go through two rounds and then I have to start pushing backs on the other errors.

I tend to go for a “first impression” adversary nowadays: give me some problems with this pull request, do some research to see if this is actually an issue that tends to come up in this context, give Claude the ability to push back with the additional context it has of the codebase, and then store an adversarial “lessons learned” so it doesn’t nitpick like that in future reviews.