workflow
3 questions
- AI
I already use Aider. Why switch to Claude Code?
Aider is a tight prompt-edit-diff-commit loop with auto-commit and many model providers; Claude Code is an agent-loop CLI built around tool use, with Bash, MCP, subagents, plugins, hooks, and skills, but only Claude as the model. Reach for Claude Code when you want autonomous work that runs tests, calls MCP servers, and iterates without you in the middle of every turn. Stay on Aider when you want a small, focused, model-agnostic editor that commits every change for free.
- AI
How do I make Claude plan before it edits code?
Press Shift+Tab in the CLI until the input shows plan mode, or write 'do not edit yet, write a plan'. Plan mode holds source edits until you approve; reads and shell commands still run (with normal prompts). Approve only plans that list exact files, an explicit out-of-scope list, and a verification command.
- AI
When you ask Claude to execute a plan, how faithfully does the implementation track it?
A captured `claude --print` session that executes the 196-line plan from scenario #33. The prompt anchored Claude to the plan: 'do not deviate; if the plan is wrong, fix the plan in a comment in the test file rather than changing the structure.' Claude implemented exactly to spec for everything except one genuine plan defect (a `mockReturnValueOnce` that would have silently failed because `markFailed` calls `now()` twice), which it surfaced as a six-line `PLAN-FIX` comment instead of silently fixing. The article shows the 16-tool-call execution sequence, the parts that stuck, the one deviation, and what that workflow buys you over straight implementation.