How We Develop with Claude Code — a Look Inside Our Process

Half a year ago, we finished building a feature that usually takes three working days — in three hours. Not because our developer is a genius (he is), but because he didn't do a large part of the work. Claude Code did it.

Claude Code is not code autocomplete. It's a development agent that runs in the terminal, reads files, writes and edits code, runs tests, fixes errors, and submits a PR — all through a natural-language conversation. Here's exactly what that looks like on a regular workday for us.

A typical development flow with Claude Code

Step 1: defining the task

The developer explains to the agent what needs to be built — in plain language, at medium detail. "Build a contact form component with validation, post to the API at /api/contact, show success/error, and make it RTL." No UML spec needed.

Step 2: the agent researches the project

Before a single line of code, the agent reads the project structure, checks existing components, identifies the design language — colors, fonts, className conventions — and understands which pattern to stick to. That's the step that saves 80% of the back-and-forth.

Step 3: write, run, fix

The agent writes code, runs `npm run build` to verify there are no TypeScript errors, runs tests if there are any — and fixes things itself. It usually closes compilation errors before the developer even sees them.

The biggest gap isn't in writing the code — it's in reading the codebase. The agent reads 50 files in seconds. We take 20 minutes and still miss something.

What this changed in our development prices

Features that cost three working days a year ago cost one day today. Not because quality dropped — the opposite. The code is usually cleaner, better structured, and includes the error handling that developers under pressure skip. We pass part of the savings to clients as lower prices, and part translates into more testing and more polish.

• Recurring features (forms, landing pages, integrations) — 3× speed
• Refactoring and code cleanup — the agent excels at it, developers hate it
• Writing tests — one of the biggest bottlenecks in development became automatic
• Documentation and READMEs — zero excuses not to write them

Where the agent is still worse than a human

Architectural judgment — when to build a microservice and when not to, or spotting that a business requirement is wrong. Subtle UX corners that are about feel rather than functionality. And real creativity — when something must be invented that has no analog in the codebase. On these three, our developer still does the work.