The Workflows That Actually Work
Concrete patterns for shipping features, fixing bugs, and running code reviews with Claude Code
Across nearly 400 sessions and 256 commits over two months, I've built an impressive full-stack development workflow with Claude Code as a deeply integrated engineering partner.
But "it works well" isn't very useful advice. What specifically works? What patterns can you steal?
End-to-End Feature Lifecycle Mastery
I consistently drive features from planning through implementation, code review, PR creation, and deployment all within single sessions. Whether it's a Calendly connector (1,352 lines across 12 files), a full Stripe Connect integration, or mobile responsive overhauls spanning 18 files, I treat Claude as a full-cycle engineering partner rather than just a code generator. My ability to chain tasks — implement, review, fix, merge, deploy — keeps momentum high and ships features fast.
Parallel Sub-Agent Architecture Audits
I've leveraged advanced agentic patterns like spawning 8 parallel sub-agents for a codebase architecture audit, producing a scored assessment that feeds directly into actionable fix plans. This shows a sophisticated understanding of how to use Claude not just for individual tasks but as an orchestration layer for complex, multi-dimensional analysis across my entire codebase.
Rapid Bug-Fix-to-PR Pipeline
I've developed an incredibly efficient bug fix workflow where I feed Claude a plan or QA report, have it implement fixes across multiple files, run code review, address findings, and push a PR — sometimes completing the entire cycle in under 10 minutes. My pattern of combining bug fix implementation with inline code review before shipping means I catch issues early while maintaining a high velocity of 256 commits across the period.
The Pattern Behind the Patterns
Every workflow above shares a common structure: clear scope, autonomous execution, verification gate, ship.
The temptation with AI coding tools is to micromanage — describe each function, review each file, approve each change. That's the slow way. The fast way is to describe the outcome you want, let Claude figure out the implementation, then verify the result against your actual quality bar (type checks, builds, tests, visual inspection).
The mental model that works: Think of Claude as a contractor, not an employee. You don't tell a contractor which nails to use — you describe the finished product and inspect the work.
What Doesn't Get Talked About Enough
The biggest unlock wasn't any single technique. It was building trust over time. After watching Claude successfully implement a complex connector across 12 files and 1,352 lines in a single session, I started scoping much more ambitiously. That compounding trust is the real force multiplier.
The flip side: trust needs to be calibrated. Claude will confidently ship code with subtle bugs (more on that in Where Things Go Wrong). The right balance is high trust on implementation, zero trust on correctness until verified.