Claude Code for the win

We have been using Claude Code as our primary development tool for the past few months. Here is an honest look at what it has changed for us.

The Setup

Our team is small — a handful of engineers working across multiple projects in a monorepo. We needed to move fast without sacrificing quality. Claude Code fit that need.

What Changed

Prototyping speed. Features that used to take a day now take an hour. Not because the code is simpler, but because the iteration loop is tighter. Describe what you want, review the output, adjust. The feedback cycle is minutes, not hours.

Consistency across the codebase. Claude Code reads our CLAUDE.md, understands our patterns, and follows them. New components match existing ones. Imports use the right aliases. Config files follow the established structure. It is like having a team member who has memorized the style guide.

Documentation as a side effect. Because we describe what we want in natural language, we end up with better commit messages, better PR descriptions, and better inline comments. The conversation IS the documentation.

What We Watch Out For

Over-automation. It is tempting to let the AI handle everything. But some decisions need human judgment — architecture choices, UX tradeoffs, naming things. We use Claude Code as a collaborator, not a replacement.

Context limits. Long sessions can lose track of earlier decisions. We mitigate this with memory files and clear CLAUDE.md instructions.

Verification. AI-generated code needs the same review as human-written code. We run builds, check outputs, and test edge cases. Trust but verify.

The Bottom Line

Claude Code did not make us better engineers. It made us faster engineers who can focus on the interesting problems instead of the repetitive ones. For a small team shipping experimental products, that is exactly what we needed.