Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
96 lines (66 loc) · 3.88 KB

boris-tane-how-i-use-claude-code.md

File metadata and controls

96 lines (66 loc) · 3.88 KB

Resource Evaluation: "How I use Claude Code" — Boris Tane

URL: https://boristane.com/blog/how-i-use-claude-code/ Author: Boris Tane, Engineering Lead @ Cloudflare Date published: February 2026 Evaluation date: 2026-02-22 Score: 4/5

Summary

9-month practitioner account of using Claude Code in production at Cloudflare. Describes a structured plan-driven workflow with an original pattern — the Annotation Cycle — where human and agent iterate on a markdown plan file before any implementation begins.

Scoring Grid

Criterion Score Notes
Novelty 4/5 Annotation Cycle not documented elsewhere in the guide
Author credibility 5/5 Engineering Lead at Cloudflare, 9 months usage
Actionability 4/5 Concrete prompts, phases, examples
Accuracy 4/5 Consistent with Claude Code behavior (verified)
Depth 4/5 Practitioner insights, not surface-level tips

Overall: 4/5 — High value. Integrate within 1 week.

Key Insights

1. Emphatic Research Language

Without strong signal, Claude skims. Words like "deeply", "in great detail", "intricacies" shift behavior from surface scan to thorough investigation. Output must be written to a file — verbal summaries disappear on context compaction.

2. The Annotation Cycle

Core innovation: iterate on plan.md with human annotations before any code is written. Human adds comments directly to the plan file, agent revises, repeat until no open questions remain. Typical: 1-6 iterations.

The guard prompt "do NOT implement anything yet" is critical — without it, Claude will start coding during planning.

3. Markdown as Shared Mutable State

Quote: "The markdown file acts as shared mutable state between you and the agent." This is the key insight — the plan file isn't just documentation, it's the coordination artifact.

4. Terse Feedback in Implementation Phase

Once plan is approved, implementation is mechanical. Short feedback ("that looks right", screenshots) is more effective than paragraphs — decisions are already made.

5. Complementary Techniques

  • Cherry-picking: implement a subset of the plan
  • Scope trimming: remove items before implementing
  • Reference-based guidance: "do it like auth.ts"
  • Revert & re-scope: git revert + restart with narrower plan

Fact-Check

Claim Verified Notes
Emphatic language changes research depth ✓ Plausible Consistent with prompt engineering principles
Plan files survive context compaction ✓ Accurate Files are external to conversation
"Guard prompt" prevents premature implementation ✓ Accurate Explicit constraints work as documented
1-6 annotation iterations typical ○ Unverified Author's personal experience, no sample size

Integration Decision

Decision: Integrate (Score 4) — Added as new section in guide/workflows/plan-driven.md.

What was integrated:

  • Section "Advanced: Custom Markdown Plans (Boris Tane Pattern)"
  • Three-phase workflow diagram (Research → Annotation Cycle → Implementation)
  • Emphatic research prompts with rationale
  • Annotation Cycle diagram with exit criteria
  • Guard prompt example
  • Phase 3 mechanical implementation guidance
  • Complementary techniques table
  • Decision table: /plan vs custom .md

Cross-references added:

  • guide/methodologies.md — callout after Plan-First section
  • machine-readable/reference.yaml — 4 entries (pattern, source, author)

What Was Not Integrated

  • Specific cost figures (not verifiable for general users)
  • Cloudflare-specific tooling references (not generalizable)
  • Exact iteration counts (too anecdotal without sample size)

Attribution

Boris Tane, Engineering Lead @ Cloudflare. Source: "How I use Claude Code" (Feb 2026).