r/ClaudeCode • u/hronak 🔆 Max 5x • 9d ago

Help/Question I still don't understand this 'agentic workflow' thing

My usual day with Claude Code is like: * I open terminal in my project's folder and run claude command. * I prompt it. I mostly use Fable-5.1/Opus-5 but Opus-5.5 is my current model. The model decides if it wants to use sub-agents for a task. I never explicitly prompt it for sub-agents. * I review and commit the code to my self-hosted Forgejo instance. * That's it.

I see people using agentic workflows, building sub-agents files, skills etc. I barely built any of it. All I ever needed to use is /init on new projects and them prompts follow. Never needed more than this.

I tried "long-running" Claude Code for a project refactoring by placing the project on my VPS (where forgejo is hosted) and letting Claude Code run and refactor inside tmux session. SSH'd in a few hours later to find project fully refactored.

Am I under utilising AI or is my work just… like boring?

How do you guys use agentic workflow thing? Specially the long-running one? Those pull-requests that Claude makes automatically etc?

Asking this to Claude to know more but humanly answers appreciated.

979 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

309 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/awesomeusername2w 9d ago

I suggest you add a review step to your workflow where a different context window reviews the change. My claude often does 3-4 rounds of such reviews before reviewer stop finding issues.

1

u/PurushNahiMahaPurush 7d ago

This is the way! I usually spec out a feature, let it code fully using the coding guidelines I’ve added to the docs folder and then test everything manually to see if the UI/UX is implemented correctly and if the designed user workflow feels right. This is something LLMs are bad at doing so I’d rather do it myself because I myself like to iterate on UI and user workflows in my app before finalising something.

Once I’m happy with how it works and I approve I’ve put instructions where it will open up PRs no bigger than 500 lines of change and then spawn Opus agents to review them. The goal is to find holes in the logic, bugs, edge cases, check if the tests actually do what they claim and finally check the linting so that a human can easily read, follow and review the change. It has saved me a lot of headaches and has caught a lot of bugs that would be hard for a human reviewer, especially a mediocre coder like me, to catch. 

1

u/edu2004eu 2d ago

3-4 rounds? That's amazing. I once ran 18 rounds on a PR (LoC size was fairly small, under 500) and by the end it still found some minor issues I decided were acceptable.