See it work before you trust it
No hype. No "10x productivity" claims. Here's what actually happens when you point Claude Code at a real problem.
What happens under the hood
When you ask Claude Code to debug something, it reads your files, traces the logic, and proposes changes as diffs you review before applying. Nothing is modified without your explicit approval.
Reading src/cache.ts
Reading src/cache.test.ts
Reading src/types.ts
Found the issue. The TTL comparison on line 47 uses < instead of <=, causing entries to expire one second early under high write concurrency.
Proposed fix:
- if (entry.expiresAt < now) {
+ if (entry.expiresAt <= now) {
Apply this change? [y/n]
What you can verify
- 1. Every file it reads is listed in the output. No hidden context. You see exactly what it saw.
- 2. Changes are shown as diffs before applying. Same workflow you use for human code reviews.
- 3. You approve or reject every modification. Nothing touches your codebase without explicit consent.
- 4. It works inside your existing tools — Git, your terminal, your editor. No new ecosystem to buy into.
Where it falls short
It can produce incorrect code. It doesn't always catch every edge case. It works best when you treat its output the way you'd treat a pull request from a colleague — read the diff, verify the logic, run the tests. The goal isn't blind trust. It's informed evaluation.