Thanks! I’ve yet to see much value in this approach. I find the time to run the agent to generate the code is pretty short, and what it produces in these unmonitored runs takes more work for me to clean up than just iterating with Claude directly. But, I do expect that the tech will keep improving and that eventually this will be the superior workflow!
what it produces in these unmonitored runs takes more work for me to clean up than just iterating with Claude directly
It may be the type of work that we are doing differs then.
Also, you don’t seem too bothered that running claude code implies a responsibility to review the code soon-ish (or have your local codebase go increasingly messy). The fact that I don’t need to worry about state with PR agents mean it is more affordable to spin more attempts, and because more attempts can be ran simultaneously, each individual attempt can be of lower quality, as long as the best attempt is good. Deciding that the code is garbage and not worth any time cleaning up is much faster than cleaning up, so in general I don’t find the initial read-through of the n attempts to take that much time. At the end I still only spin up codex on desktop if I think the task has reasonable chance to be done well, which really depends on the specific task size/difficulty/type (bug fix, refactor, adds). It’s also likely that claude code work better for you because you’re more experienced and can basically tell claude exactly what to do when it’s stuck.
It’s also likely that claude code work better for you because you’re more experienced and can basically tell claude exactly what to do when it’s stuck.
I strongly suspect this is a lot of what makes my workflow work well for me. My problem is rarely figuring out what broadly needs to be done or how I want it done, and mostly just actually making the changes I want, which is far more tedious if I have to do all the typing.
Thanks! I’ve yet to see much value in this approach. I find the time to run the agent to generate the code is pretty short, and what it produces in these unmonitored runs takes more work for me to clean up than just iterating with Claude directly. But, I do expect that the tech will keep improving and that eventually this will be the superior workflow!
It may be the type of work that we are doing differs then.
Also, you don’t seem too bothered that running claude code implies a responsibility to review the code soon-ish (or have your local codebase go increasingly messy). The fact that I don’t need to worry about state with PR agents mean it is more affordable to spin more attempts, and because more attempts can be ran simultaneously, each individual attempt can be of lower quality, as long as the best attempt is good. Deciding that the code is garbage and not worth any time cleaning up is much faster than cleaning up, so in general I don’t find the initial read-through of the n attempts to take that much time. At the end I still only spin up codex on desktop if I think the task has reasonable chance to be done well, which really depends on the specific task size/difficulty/type (bug fix, refactor, adds). It’s also likely that claude code work better for you because you’re more experienced and can basically tell claude exactly what to do when it’s stuck.
I strongly suspect this is a lot of what makes my workflow work well for me. My problem is rarely figuring out what broadly needs to be done or how I want it done, and mostly just actually making the changes I want, which is far more tedious if I have to do all the typing.