Skip to main content
Claude Code SignalsBack to the read

Every source behind the read

Every source GILD analyzed, newest first. Each says who the source is, how it knows, whether it still applies and which findings it counts toward. Open a count to see only its sources.

Whose sources count

Source

90 sources in Engineering leaders and teams, with product documentation Showing all 160 sources

  1. No opinion stated

    Arunabh Dastidar, startup engineering lead

    The big discount on intelligencePractitioner write-up

    Five engineers who paid US$800 to US$1,000 a month together on Max and Pro plans paid about US$1,000 a day for the same work at API rates, Dastidar writes.

    "After this, the bill was approximately $1000 per day for the same work. So in one fell swoop, the cost went up thirty times."
    Excerpt, Arunabh Dastidar

    Published Oct 12, 2026self-described: A team of five engineers on Max and Pro plans

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  2. Positive

    saluki, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: Is anybody producing good code with coding agents?Hacker News comment

    Reports great success with a short CLAUDE.md, skills, design and plan sessions before building, high test coverage, and Claude Code review plus human PR review for faster velocity.

    Published Oct 3, 2026self-described: Team using Claude Code in the terminal, with pull request review

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-10-03
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  3. Mixed

    Katie Parrott, staff writer, Every

    Every: Vibe Check, Opus 5.5 Is Pulling Our Codex Converts Back to ClaudeOrganization write-up

    Two Every staff who had switched from Claude Code to Codex in the months before September 22, 2026 were reconsidering after Opus 5.5, though one still prefers the Codex harness and the CEO still uses Codex for most work.

    "Mike Taylor and Tyler Nishida are former Claude power users who switched to Codex in recent months, but Opus 5.5 has them reconsidering that switch."
    Excerpt, Katie Parrott

    Published Sep 22, 2026self-described: Every staff across evals, design and leadership

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Opus 5.5
  4. Positive

    Will Larson, Chief Technology Officer at Imprint

    Trying the Software Factory pattern.Personal blog post, lethain.com

    Imprint put every engineer on Claude Code every day in January 2026 and the rest of the company on Claude Code or Cowork in March. As local work stopped scaling, it moved all work to Linear and rolled out an orchestrated agent harness.

    "January: get every engineer onto Claude Code every single day…"
    Excerpt, Will Larson

    Published Sep 20, 2026self-described: Imprint, company-wide rollout across frontend, backend, infrastructure and data repositories

    Practitioner account; ran the rollout; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Ran the rollout
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-09-20
    Not counted
    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code and Claude Cowork; Linear; an internal orchestrated harness
  5. Positive

    mh-, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Gemini Omni 1.1 FlashHacker News comment

    Writing as CTO of a GCP shop with an 8 figure annual commit, says Google still lacks a competitive offering to agentic coding tools from Anthropic and OpenAI, and that its embedded-model work skips GCP because Anthropic has its engineers' and product folks' mindshare.

    Published Aug 27, 2026self-described: Chief technology officer at a Google Cloud customer with an eight-figure annual commit

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; second-hand; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Second-hand
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Reports others' experience
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-08-27
    Not counted
    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  6. Negative

    kren87, former tech lead

    Comment on: Slop DebtHacker News comment

    As tech lead of a team vibe coding with Claude, reviewed merge requests of at least 800 lines, multiple per day per person; says understanding the code took 2 hours. Quit to start a company and is slowly reeling back to coding by hand, which they prefer.

    Published Aug 23, 2026self-described: Tech lead of a team measured by merge-request count and given fixed deadlines

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-08-23
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  7. Positive

    Sedat Dogan and Şevval Alper, AIMultiple

    AI Coding Benchmark: Claude Code vs CursorIndependent benchmark, AIMultiple

    With every CLI agent on Claude Sonnet 4.6, AIMultiple measured Claude Code at 0.789 on its full-stack tasks, third behind Opencode and Grok CLI. It placed ahead of Cursor's 0.751 and took about US$1.83 and 554 seconds a task.

    "Grok (0.803) and Claude Code (0.789) follow, also CLI tools on Sonnet 4.6."
    Excerpt, Sedat Dogan and Şevval Alper

    Published Aug 21, 2026self-described: Industry research firm; the same full-stack tasks run by CLI agents and AI code editors

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on Claude Code: v2.1.165
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    1 artifact (benchmark output)
    Date and version
    2026-08-21, Claude Code: v2.1.165
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code v2.1.165 on Claude Sonnet 4.6
  8. Positive

    Yaroslav (Yarik), tech lead for the coding-agent rollout, Superhuman

    How Superhuman Scaled AI Coding Agents Across Their Entire Eng OrgConference talk video

    Superhuman moved from Copilot to Cursor to Claude Code after an early beta about 11 months before the talk; its tech lead has not written code in the editor since and scaled Claude Code workflows across the engineers.

    "11 months ago to Superhuman reached out Anthropic reached to us and offered to do the beta of this new cloud cloud tool that basically changed everything overnight, at least for me. I was like the first participant in this POC. Since then, haven't written a single line of code in in the editor."
    Transcript excerpt, Yaroslav (Yarik) (automatic captions), at 3:58

    Published Aug 18, 2026self-described: Superhuman, formerly Grammarly, engineering organization

    Not counted

    Superhuman took part in an early Claude Code beta that Anthropic offered it. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  9. Positive

    jaegerpicker, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: AI Coding and Its DiscontentsHacker News comment

    jaegerpicker's team reports 5x output with fewer quality issues by having Claude research each ticket into acceptance criteria that humans validate, then requiring local testing, integration tests, and 90% coverage.

    Published Aug 12, 2026self-described: Engineer with 25 years of experience; their team plans, codes, and verifies tickets with Claude

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Opus 5
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-08-12, Opus 5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Opus 5
  10. Negative

    throwatdem12311, Only staff engineer at a company

    Comment on: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation modelsHacker News comment

    As sole staff engineer reviewing PRs from three offshore developers using Claude Code, throwatdem12311 says review has become impossible to keep up with and delivery has slowed.

    Published Jul 26, 2026self-described: Small company, half-million-line codebase, reviewing PRs from 3 offshore developers

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; second-hand; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Second-hand
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Reports others' experience
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-26
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  11. Positive

    aurareturn, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Who's afraid of Chinese models?Hacker News comment

    The company rallied around Claude: it customizes Claude Code, adds knowledge bases and writes skills for non-technical staff, and uses Claude features company-wide, which makes it hard to switch.

    Published Jul 21, 2026self-described: Company that standardized on Claude

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-21
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  12. Mixed

    Robat Williams, developer at Scott Logic

    Choosing the right tool safety approach for coding agentsCompany engineering blog post, Scott Logic

    Testing sandbox setups, Williams found that Claude Code's sandboxed Bash tool passes environment variables to the sandboxed process by default and can read the entire computer it runs on.

    "Claude Code’s sandboxed Bash terminal tool by default exposes environment variables to the sandboxed process, and has read access to the entire computer it’s running on."
    Excerpt, Robat Williams

    Published Jul 15, 2026Scott Logic, software consultancy; hardening coding agent setups

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (I work developing web applications for our clients at Scott Logic.)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-15
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code sandboxed Bash tool, default configuration
  13. Positive

    Alexey Milovidov, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer at ClickHouse

    Agentic Coding at ClickHouseCompany blog post, ClickHouse Blog

    ClickHouse's chief technology officer says agents became fully usable for daily work on its large C++ codebase from Opus 4.5, and the company mostly runs Claude Code in the terminal with Codex as a backup; he finds Claude Code slow at times, with bugs and glitches, and says agent output still needs review.

    "Since Opus 4.5, agents have been fully usable for daily work on large C++ code bases."
    Excerpt, Alexey Milovidov
    "Claude Code is a very powerful tool, but it can be slow, and it has bugs and glitches. I still recommend using it over integrated agents."
    Same speaker
    "For CLI agents, we use mostly Claude Code with Opus 4.6, but some people prefer Codex CLI with Codex 5.4."
    Same speaker

    Published Jul 14, 2026ClickHouse engineering, large C++ codebase, company-wide agent use

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page); Observed on Claude Code with Opus 4.6
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Co-Founder & CTO)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    8 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-07-14, Claude Code with Opus 4.6
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, data control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with Opus 4.5 and 4.6; Codex CLI kept as a backup
  14. Positive

    radlad, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Write code like a human will maintain itHacker News comment

    Runs several Claude Code instances in parallel and reviews the output before team review. The team ships more, radlad knows the code less well, and pre-push and team reviews are now the bottleneck.

    Published Jul 10, 2026self-described: Workplace with about two engineers per service; runs several Claude Code sessions on unrelated work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-10
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Several Claude Code instances in parallel
  15. Positive

    maiybe, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributionsHacker News comment

    On a Godot mobile app their team estimates 3x speed and 3x more pull requests with about 20% more regressions. They dropped review below a file-size threshold and grew CI tests about 500%.

    Published Jul 1, 2026self-described: Team building a Godot mobile app, with shared Claude skills for writing and auditing pull requests

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-01
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude with team PR-writing and PR-auditing skills
  16. Positive

    Michael Redding, Principal Product Manager, Indeed

    DX Engineering Enablement: How structured AI training scaled developer productivityPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    Indeed retired Copilot and Cody once their weekly use fell to about 3%, and by mid-2026 its roughly 2,000 engineers worked mostly in Claude Code, with some Cursor, Windsurf and Amp.

    "And if you’re interested, our breakdown rate, we’re mostly Claude Code, a little bit Cursor, some Windsurf, and then down at the bottom, Amp. If you actually add up these percentages, it’s definitely more than 100%. So we also see that our devs are using multiple tools at the same time."
    Excerpt, Michael Redding

    Published Jun 29, 2026Indeed engineering, about 2,000 engineers

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  17. Mixed

    linsomniac, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxingHacker News comment

    At a company thrifty with AI spend, had a US$100 a month spend while trying to be its AI leader. Sees that Claude Code can do a lot of heavy lifting at work, while most colleagues stuck cost-maxing cannot imagine hitting session limits; says there's a case the cost-maxing hurt the company.

    Published Jun 28, 2026self-described: Company AI lead; most employees on US$20 monthly plans

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Claude $100 service
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-28, Claude $100 service
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    US$100 Max plan
  18. No opinion stated

    Matei Zaharia, co-founder, Databricks

    Latent Space: Matei Zaharia of Databricks at Data + AI Summit 2026Podcast episode with publisher transcript

    Databricks' developer infrastructure team built Isaac, a wrapper over Claude Code and Codex that runs either in web sandboxes or on engineers' machines.

    "…they built something called Isaac, that’s like a wrapper on Claude Code and Codex, and, lets you use them either on the web in, like, sandboxes or, just on your dev machine or on your laptop or whatever."
    Transcript excerpt, Matei Zaharia, around 2:22 in the episode

    Published Jun 24, 2026self-described: Databricks developer infrastructure

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  19. Negative

    thewebguyd, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude TagHacker News comment

    Rolled Cowork out to all non-technical staff at work and calls Cowork/Claude Desktop frustrating, with no native audit log and all-or-nothing access for Claude Code and for some MCP connections such as QuickBooks Online. Wants governance features and per-member RBAC.

    Published Jun 23, 2026self-described: Company that rolled Claude Cowork out to all non-technical staff on Microsoft Teams

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; ran the rollout; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Ran the rollout
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-23
    Not counted
    Operational control, admin control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  20. Positive

    cyan, iOS engineer on the Mercoin (MC) Client team

    Scaling Myself: How I Run 22 Claude Code Sessions for DS4 MigrationEngineering blog post, Mercari Engineering blog

    A Mercoin iOS engineer runs 22 Claude Code sessions across git worktrees with phase-specific slash commands to ship about 140 design-system migration PRs, plus dedicated sessions reviewing teammates' PRs.

    Published Jun 22, 2026self-described: Mercari / Mercoin client team, design-system migration

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-22
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    22 Claude Code sessions on git worktrees, custom slash commands, Obsidian vault as knowledge base
  21. Positive

    Brian Scanlan, Senior Principal Systems Engineer at Intercom

    Doubling the productivity of your engineering team using AI (Brian Scanlan)Conference talk (recorded, DX Annual), Engineering Enablement by DX (DX Annual talk; recap by Justin Reock)

    In a DX Annual talk, Intercom's Brian Scanlan reports that standardizing on Claude Code, enablement and new performance expectations doubled merged PRs per R&D member in nine months.

    Published Jun 15, 2026self-described: Intercom R&D organization

    Practitioner account, self-described; second-hand; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Claude Code partner: not counted as independent; Second-hand; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    partner (confirmed)
    How they know
    Reports others' experience
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-15
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code standardized as the single AI platform
  22. Mixed

    Sergii Gorbachov, Staff Software Engineer at Slack

    Agentic Testing: Where Agents Fit in the E2E Testing StackCompany engineering blog post, Slack Engineering

    Ran more than 200 agentic end-to-end test runs at Slack through non-interactive Claude Code. Agent runs typically cost US$15 to 30 each and averaged about 5 to 11 minutes; says the cost may currently suit them better to debugging and exploratory testing than to high-frequency CI.

    "Agent-driven runs were typically $15 to 30 per execution, compared to much cheaper traditional test runs."
    Excerpt, Sergii Gorbachov
    "Due to the cost, agent-driven testing may currently be better suited for targeted debugging or exploratory testing than for high-frequency CI execution…"
    Same speaker

    Published Jun 11, 2026Slack end-to-end testing, more than 200 agent runs in test workspaces

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on Claude Sonnet 4.5; Claude Opus 4.6; Haiku 4.5
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Staff Software Engineer)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    1 artifact (benchmark output)
    Date and version
    2026-06-11, Claude Sonnet 4.5; Claude Opus 4.6; Haiku 4.5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Non-interactive Claude Code (claude -p), Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.6
  23. Positive

    jabart, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anthropic/OpenAI may be spending more than US$1000 for every US$100 you pay themHacker News comment

    jabart's team measured usage with cc-usage and found costs near the monthly license on a multi-million-line codebase, even with jabart running 3 to 4 sessions at once.

    Published Jun 7, 2026self-described: Team on a Claude Team plan, working in a codebase of millions of lines

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on team pro
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-07, team pro
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Team plan ('team pro side')
  24. Positive

    Pablo Arellano, Software Developer at Atolio

    A UI Framework Migration in the Age of AI: How We Migrated Svelte 4 to 5 with Claude Code in Six HoursCompany engineering blog post, Atolio Blog

    After months of human investigation went into one detailed prompt, Atolio let Claude Code run in auto mode for about six hours to move thousands of files from Svelte 4 to 5; two developers then spent about two days on warnings and QA, which found one bug.

    "…we let it run in auto mode for around six hours on a Friday afternoon…"
    Excerpt, Pablo Arellano
    "Once it was in testing, the team found only one bug during QA."
    Same speaker

    Published Jun 4, 2026Atolio engineering team, Svelte front end with thousands of files

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Software Developer)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    3 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-06-04
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code plan mode, then auto mode
  25. Positive

    Niklas Gustavsson, Chief Architect and VP of Engineering at Spotify

    Coding Is No Longer the Constraint: Scaling Developer Experience to Teams and Agents at SpotifyCompany engineering blog post, Spotify Engineering (Code with Claude 2026 talk)

    Spotify reports that more than 99% of its engineers use AI coding tools every week, with Claude Code adoption jumping after Opus 4.5, and pull request frequency up 76%. Agents perform measurably worse in its fragmented codebases.

    "…we’re seeing a 76% increase in pull request frequency, with the vast majority of PRs authored by a developer working alongside an AI agent."
    Excerpt, Niklas Gustavsson

    Published Jun 3, 2026Spotify engineering; Claude Code and the Honk background agent built on the Claude Agent SDK

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Observed on Opus 4.5; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Spotify's Chief Architect and VP of Engineering)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-03, Opus 4.5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code adoption rose sharply with Opus 4.5
  26. Positive

    Srinivas Tallapragada, President and Chief Engineering and Customer Success Officer at Salesforce

    How Salesforce Engineering Became Truly AgenticCompany newsroom post, Salesforce News

    Salesforce moved all engineers to Claude Code as its primary agent tool and removed token limits; from April 2025 to April 2026 PRs merged per developer rose 79% while incidents fell 5%, and one team finished a 231 person-day migration in 13 days.

    "The biggest inflection point was a deliberate, organization-wide pivot to Claude Code as our primary AI agent tool."
    Excerpt, Srinivas Tallapragada
    "In April 2026, work items completed per developer are up 50.8% compared with April 2025. PRs merged per developer are up 79%."
    Same speaker

    Published May 27, 2026Salesforce global engineering, Claude Code rolled out to every engineer

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Claude Code partner: not counted as independent; Ran the rollout; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    investor (suspected)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-27
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Not counted

    Salesforce, the author's employer, is an Anthropic investor and strategic partner. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code as the primary AI agent tool, token limits removed
  27. Positive

    Ahmad El-Shafey, Senior Engineering Manager at Slack

    What I Learned Using Claude Code as an Engineering Manager During Focus WeekPersonal blog post, Medium

    A Slack engineering manager used Claude Code to turn one doc fix into systematic cleanup and tooling, but found rules drift on bigger tasks, review stays essential, and over-engineering gets easy.

    Published May 13, 2026self-described: Slack, their engineering team's repo during Focus Week

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-13
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with shared repo rules files and pre-commit checks
  28. No opinion stated

    Jack Steele, Director of Engineering, Knak

    Knak Blog: Claude Code streamlining at KnakEngineering write-up

    After a developer tiger team spent six weeks making the repository safe, Knak's designers prototype directly in the production codebase with Claude Code in place of Figma and Lovable handoffs.

    Published May 7, 2026self-described: Knak designers and a developer tiger team

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  29. Positive

    Peter Ludwig, co-founder and chief technology officer, Applied Intuition

    Latent Space: Applied Intuition with Peter LudwigPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    At Applied Intuition, which uses every coding tool and ranks adoption on a leaderboard, Claude Code has replaced Cursor as the most used tool.

    "Yeah. We use everything. So Cursor was, I think the hottest tool in the company for a good while. Now Claude Code, I think has taken the reign on that. We have a internal leader, leaderboard that we use just to sort of encourage adoption…"
    Transcript excerpt, Peter Ludwig, around 21:55 in the episode

    Published Apr 27, 2026self-described: Applied Intuition, company-wide tool use with an internal adoption leaderboard

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  30. Positive

    Spencer Niemi, Elastic InfoSec

    Claude Code/Cowork monitoring at scale with Otel & ElasticCompany engineering blog post, Elastic Security Labs

    Describes how Elastic's InfoSec team monitors Claude Code, in active use across Elastic engineering, by exporting its OpenTelemetry events into Elastic, with telemetry set through managed settings deployed by IT that users cannot override. Notes telemetry is opt-in and redacts prompts and tool arguments by default.

    "Claude Code supports managed settings that are deployed by IT and cannot be overridden by users."
    Excerpt, Spencer Niemi

    Published Apr 25, 2026self-described: Elastic engineering organization; the InfoSec team monitors agent use with OpenTelemetry

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-25
    Counts toward
    Operational control, data control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, admin control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Operational control, execution control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code and Cowork, OpenTelemetry export into Elastic
  31. Positive

    Caroline Schneider, Marmelab

    Claude Code Tips I Wish I'd Had From Day OneCompany engineering blog post, Marmelab

    After months of daily use, Marmelab asks Claude Code for one step at a time and reviews each before the next, because asking for a whole feature sends it off the rails. Lessons from each session go into CLAUDE.md, rules and skills.

    "If you say “implement the whole feature,” Claude will go off the rails. Instead, ask for step one, review it, and only then ask for step two."
    Excerpt, Caroline Schneider

    Published Apr 24, 2026self-described: Marmelab, software agency; client projects and its react-admin and Atomic CRM open source frameworks

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Observed on Opus with 1M context; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-24, Opus with 1M context
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Plan mode, /rewind and /clear; Opus with 1M context only for specific tasks
  32. Positive

    Devon Edwards Joseph, Senior Engineer at Spotify

    Background Coding Agents: Supercharging Downstream Consumer Dataset Migrations (Honk, Part 4)Engineering blog post, Spotify Engineering

    A Spotify team rolled out 240 automated dataset migration PRs with its Claude Code based agent, work it estimated at about 10 engineering weeks by hand; it needed very detailed prompts, and it dropped one pipeline framework whose style varied too much between teams.

    "We estimated that it would have taken around 10 engineering weeks of effort to complete these migrations manually."
    Excerpt, Devon Edwards Joseph
    "…we successfully rolled out 240 automated migration PRs using Fleetshift…"
    Same speaker

    Published Apr 22, 2026Spotify data team migrating downstream dataset consumers with Honk and Fleetshift

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Senior Engineer)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    3 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-04-22
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code agents inside Honk, without skills or custom configuration at the time
  33. Positive

    Mikhail Parakhin, chief technology officer, Shopify

    Latent Space: Shopify with Mikhail ParakhinPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    Shopify's internal usage chart shows command-line agents such as Claude Code taking off since December 2025, while IDE tools grow more slowly.

    "The other thing I would claim you could see is that, uh, CLI-based tools and tools that don’t require you to look at the code becoming more popular, and you could see, yeah, various versions of, uh, Cloud Code and Codex and Pi and internal development tools taking off."
    Transcript excerpt, Mikhail Parakhin, around 3:52 in the episode

    Published Apr 22, 2026self-described: Shopify, every employee chooses their coding tool

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  34. Mixed

    Stella Laurenzo (stellaraccident), software engineer (employer unnamed in the issue)

    [MODEL] Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with the Feb updatesGitHub issue

    Reports from months of mined Claude Code logs on IREE projects using Opus that complex engineering quality degraded from February, forcing a shutdown of the concurrent agent fleet for single-session work. Says Claude has been good to them and hopes Anthropic can address it.

    Published Apr 2, 2026self-described: Compiler/GPU projects; the issue's first version says every senior engineer on the author's team reported similar experiences

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on Opus
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    7 artifacts (benchmark output)
    Date and version
    2026-04-02, Opus
    Counts toward
    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Opus via Anthropic API, multiple Claude Code versions, 5,000+ word CLAUDE.md
  35. Positive

    Dan Guido, CEO at Trail of Bits

    How we made Trail of Bits AI-native (so far)Company blog post, Trail of Bits Blog

    Says Trail of Bits got everyone on Claude Code with supported configs, default sandboxing and a curated plugin marketplace. For certain clients where codebase and scope allow, auditors running fleets of agents went from about 15 bugs a week to 200.

    "We got everyone on Claude Code, and we treat it like any other enterprise tool…"
    Excerpt, Dan Guido
    "…we went from finding about 15 bugs a week to 200…"
    Same speaker

    Published Mar 31, 2026Security consultancy; every employee on Claude Code with shared configs and sandboxes

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (CEO and co-founder)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    5 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-03-31
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, admin control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, data control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with company plugins, skills, sandboxing and a shared config repo
  36. Positive

    Andrew Walker, Engineering Director at Fin.ai (Intercom)

    What we're learning from engineers getting the most from Claude CodeCompany blog post, Fin Ideas (Intercom)

    Shares, as an engineering director at Fin.ai, what engineers reported: some of the most experienced accelerate faster than earlier-career peers, and those getting the most from Claude plan over many turns and invest in claude.md as evolving instructions. Says many keep their anxiety to themselves.

    Published Mar 25, 2026self-described: Intercom engineering organization

    Practitioner account, self-described; second-hand; not counted until substantiated How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Second-hand
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Reports others' experience
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-25
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  37. Positive

    Brian Scanlan, engineer at Intercom

    How we use Claude Code today at IntercomCompany blog post, Fin Ideas (Intercom)

    Intercom turned Claude Code into an internal platform: 13 plugins, 100+ skills, hook-enforced PR workflow, guarded read-only production console, OpenTelemetry observability and auto-updated CLAUDE.md files.

    Published Mar 19, 2026self-described: Intercom, company-wide Claude Code platform (engineering, data, support, product)

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-19
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, admin control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, data control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Internal plugin marketplace, hooks, MCP servers, Claude Haiku for session analysis
  38. Positive

    alexmuro, Runs a small analytics and web products lab; manages 5 developers

    Comment on: Ask HN: How is AI-assisted coding going for you professionally?Hacker News comment

    Since trying Claude Code with Opus 4.5 alexmuro writes few features by hand, rebuilt a server and added sync, keeps a short leash, and reports mixed reactions across their five-person team.

    Published Mar 15, 2026self-described: Small lab building a React/Node analytics and GIS platform for clients

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Opus 4.5; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-15, Opus 4.5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Opus 4.5
  39. Mixed

    Shodhan Sheth, Enterprise Modernization, Platforms & Cloud Lead at Thoughtworks

    Claude Code and COBOL modernization: What’s the reality?Company article, Thoughtworks Insights

    Says, from 18 months of AI-assisted legacy modernization at Thoughtworks, that Claude Code is one of the best coding agents so far, exceptional on time and cost but weaker on correctness and drift, and that agents cannot yet reliably ingest tens of millions of lines at once.

    "In terms of Claude Code, it’s exceptional when it comes to time and cost. What it’s not as strong as, though, are the bottom two issues…"
    Excerpt, Shodhan Sheth

    Published Mar 2, 2026Thoughtworks UK legacy modernization practice, 18 months of AI-assisted mainframe work, with Alessio Ferri

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Enterprise Modernization, Platforms & Cloud Lead)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-02
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  40. Positive

    Kat Korson, Director at Red Eagle Tech

    How We Trained Our Engineering Team To Actually Use Claude Code (not just chat with it)Company-authored engineering practice account, Collabnix

    Red Eagle Tech describes Claude Code reading existing workflows, tracing repository conventions, generating a complete CI/CD pipeline, and reaching a reviewed pull request in about 25 minutes. Manual work took about three hours, and the account still calls for review.

    Published Feb 21, 2026self-described: Red Eagle Tech engineering team building bespoke software and an e-commerce SaaS platform

    Practitioner account; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Ran the rollout; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-21
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code embedded in daily engineering workflows for about a year
  41. No opinion stated

    Alistair Gray, engineer, Stripe

    Stripe Dot Dev: Minions, Stripe's one-shot end-to-end coding agents, part 2Engineering write-up

    Stripe makes Cursor and Claude Code available for supervised work and syncs its Cursor rules into a format Claude Code reads, so its three most used agents share one set of guidance.

    "We also now sync our Cursor rules into a format that Claude Code can read as well, so that our three most popular coding agents (minions, Cursor, and Claude Code) can all benefit from the guidance that lives in rule files that Stripe engineers are scaffolding in our codebase."
    Excerpt, Alistair Gray

    Published Feb 19, 2026self-described: Stripe engineering

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  42. Positive

    Charles Herring, co-founder and chairman of WitFoo

    Teaching Claude the Old Tricks: Lessons from Migrating Legacy Code to an AI-Assisted WorkflowPersonal blog post, charlesherring.com

    Brought WitFoo's decade-old production platform into Claude Code work by first having it document the code into CLAUDE.md, then writing a WITFOO_WAY.md standards file and cleaning up debt before a rebuild. Says without a standards document each Claude session makes slightly different decisions.

    "Without a clear standards document, each Claude session makes slightly different decisions."
    Excerpt, Charles Herring

    Published Feb 10, 2026self-described: WitFoo, cybersecurity platform; a decade of production code moving to a rebuilt product

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page); Observed on Claude Sonnet 4.5
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Chairman and co-Founder)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    4 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-02-10, Claude Sonnet 4.5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Opus plans, Claude Sonnet 4.5 executes generated issues
  43. Positive

    Chad Pytel, Developer and CEO at thoughtbot

    Claude Code: Production ready code in a two-week sprintCompany blog post, thoughtbot blog

    thoughtbot built production-quality Rails code for a client in a two-week sprint with Claude Code by giving it very small tasks, keeping a CLAUDE.md and reviewing every change before a human commit; sometimes it wrote tests that checked only the fake objects they set up.

    "During a two-week sprint with a startup, we ended the intense engagement with true production-quality code…"
    Excerpt, Chad Pytel
    "Allowing Claude Code to make commits relinquishes this critical quality control step."
    Same speaker

    Published Feb 9, 2026thoughtbot consultancy team building a client Rails app

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Developer and CEO)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-09
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with a maintained CLAUDE.md on a Rails app
  44. Mixed

    Juwan Wheatley, Expo engineer

    What our web team learned using Claude Code for a monthCompany engineering blog post, Expo Blog

    Expo's web team says Claude Code performs best on well-specified repository work, while context quality deteriorates as it accumulates and the agent still needs explicit reminders and human review.

    Published Feb 6, 2026self-described: Expo web team and company-wide Claude Code users

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran the rollout
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-06
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Expo web team use over one month
  45. Positive

    Stephan Lensky, senior engineer on the AI Developer Experience team at HubSpot

    Cloud Coding Agents at HubSpotCompany engineering blog post, HubSpot Product Blog

    HubSpot built its cloud agent platform on Claude Code, which it already knew worked well for its engineers, and in six months merged over 7,000 fully AI-generated pull requests and reviewed over 50,000 human ones, using hooks to enforce the behavior it wants.

    "…we used an existing platform, Claude Code, which we already knew worked well for our engineers…"
    Excerpt, Stephan Lensky
    "To date, we have merged over 7,000 fully AI-generated pull requests and code reviewed over 50,000 pull requests authored by humans."
    Same speaker

    Published Jan 23, 2026HubSpot engineering, self-hosted cloud agent platform (Crucible) on Kubernetes

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (senior engineer on the internal AI Developer Experience team at HubSpot)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    4 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2026-01-23
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code in custom Docker images, run by Crucible with hooks
  46. Positive

    James Reggio, chief technology officer, Brex

    Latent Space: Brex's AI Hail Mary, with James ReggioPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    Brex lets employees choose between Cursor, Windsurf and Claude Code credits, and some engineers stay on Claude Code after nine months because they know it.

    "…some folks are just like, I want to stick with Cloud Code because I know it now. I’ve been working with it for like nine months, so I don’t need to keep switching."
    Transcript excerpt, James Reggio, around 21:15 in the episode

    Published Jan 17, 2026self-described: Brex, a few seats of several tools chosen by employees

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  47. Mixed

    Darryn Dieken, Chief Availability Officer, Salesforce

    Salesforce Engineering: How AI-enabled tooling boosted code output 30%Engineering write-up

    Salesforce uses Claude Code as a command-line tool for automation and scripting beside Cursor and Windsurf, and reports code in production up 30%, which put pressure on review and deployment.

    "AI accelerated development speed, increasing code in production by 30%. This surge created significant pressure on downstream processes."
    Excerpt, Darryn Dieken

    Published Dec 16, 2025self-described: Salesforce engineering

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  48. Positive

    Max Charas and Marc Bruggmann, Senior Staff and Principal Engineers at Spotify

    Background Coding Agents: Predictable Results Through Strong Feedback Loops (Honk, Part 3)Engineering blog post, Spotify Engineering

    Spotify runs build and test verifiers through Claude Code's stop hook and adds an LLM judge, which vetoes about a quarter of thousands of agent sessions, most often for going outside the prompt; with these loops the agents solve complex tasks reliably.

    "…we know from internal metrics that out of thousands of agent sessions, the judge vetoes about a quarter of them…"
    Excerpt, Max Charas and Marc Bruggmann
    "With verifiers and a Judge to guide them, we've found that our agents can solve increasingly complex tasks with a high degree of reliability."
    Same speaker

    Published Dec 9, 2025Spotify Fleet Management, background agent (Honk) running Claude Code across thousands of components

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Max Charas (Senior Staff Engineer) and Marc Bruggmann (Principal Engineer))
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    2 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2025-12-09
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code inside Honk, with verifiers run from the stop hook and an LLM judge
  49. Positive

    Dex Horthy, Founder of HumanLayer

    No Vibes Allowed: Solving Hard Problems in Complex Codebases - Dex Horthy, HumanLayerConference talk (AI Engineer Code 2025), YouTube (AI Engineer channel; transcript on ai.engineer)

    HumanLayer's founder describes a research, plan, implement workflow built around Claude Code's context window that took the three-person team to two to three times throughput on complex brownfield codebases.

    "…minute, but like the point is you're constantly st keeping your context window small. You're building your entire workflow around context management. So comes in three phases. research, plan, implement. Um, and we're going to try to stay in the smart zone…"
    Transcript excerpt, at 7:37

    Published Dec 2, 2025self-described: HumanLayer, three-person engineering team

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Competitor staff: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    competitor employee (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-12-02
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code with research/plan/implement prompts and subagents
  50. Positive

    Max Charas and Marc Bruggmann, Senior Staff and Principal Engineers at Spotify

    Background Coding Agents: Context Engineering (Honk, Part 2)Engineering blog post, Spotify Engineering

    Spotify moved its background migration agent to Claude Code after open source and homegrown agents struggled, finding end-state prompts, few tools and a verify tool give mergeable PRs.

    Published Nov 24, 2025self-described: Spotify, fleet-wide background coding agent for migrations

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Artifact checked (organization page)
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Max Charas (Senior Staff Engineer) and Marc Bruggmann (Principal Engineer))
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    4 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2025-11-24
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code inside Spotify's background agent (Honk)
  51. Positive

    Asher Moore, engineering leader at Airtasker

    Rolling out Claude Code at AirtaskerEngineering blog post, Technology @ Airtasker (Medium)

    Airtasker rolled Claude Code out across engineering via AWS Bedrock for data sovereignty, with managed settings, OpenTelemetry dashboards, and a custom spend tracker after CLI cost figures proved unreliable.

    Published Nov 10, 2025self-described: Airtasker, engineering-wide rollout via AWS Bedrock

    Practitioner account; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Ran the rollout; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-10
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, data control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, admin control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code via AWS Bedrock (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku), OpenTelemetry to Datadog
  52. Positive

    Shrivu Shankar, leads AI developer tooling at Abnormal AI

    How I Use Every Claude Code FeaturePersonal blog post, Shrivu's Substack (blog.sshh.io)

    Describes how Abnormal AI uses Claude Code on its monorepo: a strictly maintained 13KB CLAUDE.md, clear-and-document restarts over auto-compaction, a hook that blocks commits until tests pass, and enterprise API keys for usage-based pricing.

    Published Nov 2, 2025self-described: Abnormal AI engineering, shared monorepo

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Ran the rollout; Specific details; Observed on Sonnet-1M
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (VP, AI @ Abnormal AI)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-02, Sonnet-1M
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, admin control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Enterprise API keys via apiKeyHelper; Sonnet-1M mentioned
  53. Positive

    Armin Ronacher, founder of a new company

    90%Personal blog post, lucumr.pocoo.org

    Ronacher reports more than 90% AI-written code in a 40,000-line Go service at his new company. Claude Code is his tool for debugging that needs heavy tool access, such as a deadlock or corrupted data, and he still reviews every line.

    "Claude is indispensable still when debugging and needing a lot of tool access (eg: why do I have a deadlock, why is there corrupted data in the database etc.)."
    Excerpt, Armin Ronacher

    Published Sep 29, 2025self-described: New company; a 40,000-line Go email service with generated Python and TypeScript SDKs

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-09-29, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code for building and debugging, Codex for pull request review
  54. Positive

    Jonathan Pedoeem, Technical founder of PromptLayer

    Claude Code has changed how we do engineeringCompany blog post, PromptLayer blog

    PromptLayer's founder says Claude Code let the team clear its backlog under a 'build it if under an hour' rule, while warning reviews remain essential because it makes characteristic mistakes.

    Published Sep 3, 2025self-described: PromptLayer, startup engineering team

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-09-03, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  55. Positive

    Vincent Quigley, then Staff Engineer at Sanity

    First attempt will be 95% garbage: A staff engineer's 6-week journey with Claude CodeEngineering blog post, Sanity Engineering

    A Sanity engineer treats Claude Code like a junior developer with amnesia: three attempts per feature, Claude.md context, layered review, 2-3x faster shipping at roughly US$1000-1500 per month.

    Published Sep 2, 2025self-described: Sanity, engineering team (internal workshop write-up)

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Software Engineer Manager)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-09-02, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code with MCP integrations (Linear, Notion, GitHub)
  56. Mixed

    Peter Silberman, Chief Technology Officer at Fixify

    Practical Lessons Learned using Claude Code to automate IntegrationsNewsletter post (Substack)

    Tried to have Claude Code zero-shot whole Fixify integrations, first through CLAUDE.md, then with specialized sub-agents that hallucinated permissions and API routes until an agent distilling vendor docs into a reference file cut that dramatically. Says full autonomy is probably not coming without human oversight.

    "Unsurprisingly, Claude and its sub-agents hallucinated, permissions that didn’t exist, API routes that weren’t real."
    Excerpt, Peter Silberman
    "Will we ever ship a fully autonomous integration? Probably not without human oversight."
    Same speaker

    Published Aug 20, 2025Fixify, IT operations company with its own integration SDK

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Chief Technology Officer)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-08-20, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code sub-agents and CLAUDE.md on an opinionated integration SDK
  57. Positive

    Mitch Alderson, Render

    Testing AI coding agents (2025): Cursor vs. Claude, OpenAI, and GeminiIndependent benchmark, Render engineering blog

    Rated four coding agents on a vibe-coded app and two large pre-AI repos. Claude Code averaged 6.8 of 10 against Cursor's 8, with 5 of 10 on context; calls it best for rapid prototypes and a productive terminal UX.

    "Cursor leads on setup speed, Docker/Render deployment, and code quality, while Claude Code is best for rapid prototypes and a productive terminal UX."
    Excerpt, Mitch Alderson

    Published Aug 12, 2025self-described: Render engineering; timed tests on its own production codebases and a new Next.js app

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Ran a structured test; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    1 artifact (benchmark output)
    Date and version
    2025-08-12, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Code, mid-2025; Cursor ran Claude Sonnet 4 in every test
  58. Positive

    Maxime Beauchemin, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Preset

    Adopting Claude Code: Riding the Software Economics SingularityCompany blog post, Preset Blog

    Preset's founder says Claude Code was the first AI tool that worked on large repositories, clearing refactors and test backlogs in minutes plus review time, and that the LLMS.md and CLAUDE.md files in the Superset repo became the most helpful documents the team ever wrote.

    "In our Superset repo, our LLMS.md and CLAUDE.md files have become the most helpful documents we've ever written."
    Excerpt, Maxime Beauchemin
    "Before Claude Code (mid-May if you were first in line), AI pretty much sucked on large repos."
    Same speaker

    Published Aug 4, 2025Preset, the company behind Apache Superset; large open source repository

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role self-described (Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Preset)
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-08-04, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code on the Apache Superset repository with LLMS.md and CLAUDE.md files
  59. Positive

    Orta Therox, engineer at Puzzmo

    6 Weeks of Claude CodeCompany engineering blog post, Puzzmo Blog

    Cleared what Orta Therox calls years of tech-debt backlog solo in six weeks with Claude Code while working on the existing roadmap. Credits monorepos and boring, explicit technologies, and finds the change hard to see in pull request, commit and line counts.

    Published Jul 30, 2025self-described: Puzzmo, small engineering team, monorepos

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-30, $100 a month account, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    US$100 a month plan, run with --dangerously-skip-permissions
  60. Mixed

    Kush Gupta, engineer at Graphite

    How I got Claude to write code I could actually shipEngineering blog post, Graphite blog

    Graphite engineers found Claude Code's large refactor diffs unreviewable, even edited tests, so many used it only for point fixes until CLAUDE.md stacking instructions produced small reviewable PRs.

    Published Jul 24, 2025self-described: Graphite engineering team, monorepo

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    vendor employee (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-24, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code with Graphite's GT MCP and CLAUDE.md stacking instructions
  61. Positive

    Dan Shipper, co-founder and CEO, Every

    Lenny's Podcast: Dan Shipper of EveryPodcast episode video

    Every's CEO stated in July 2025 that everyone at Every who builds something uses Claude Code, with Codex for small self-contained features.

    "Claude Code, everyone inside Every, that's basically what we use. If you're building something, you're using Claude Code."
    Transcript excerpt, Dan Shipper, at 36:53

    Published Jul 17, 2025self-described: Every, company-wide

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Organization-wide
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  62. Positive

    Steve Sewell, Builder.io

    How I use Claude Code (+ my best tips)Company blog post, Builder.io

    After a year as a Cursor power user, Sewell moved his agent work to Claude Code, the only agent that has successfully updated an 18,000-line React component at Builder.io. He runs it with permission prompts skipped and calls the US$100 Max plan worth it.

    "No AI agent has ever successfully updated this file except Claude Code."
    Excerpt, Steve Sewell

    Published Jul 11, 2025self-described: Builder.io, large React codebase; a Cursor power user for a year before the switch

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); vendor employee (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-11, max plan at $100/month, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    US$100 Max plan, Opus with a fallback to Sonnet
  63. Positive

    Lawrence Jones, software engineer, incident.io

    The Pragmatic Engineer: Software engineering with LLMs in 2025Newsletter account

    At incident.io, many engineers adopted Cursor first, and Claude Code then became the biggest change, with the entire team using it regularly by mid-2025.

    "Claude Code has been the biggest change, though. Our entire team are regular users. Claude Code is the interactive terminal app that runs an Anthropic agent to explore and modify your codebase.”…"
    Excerpt, Lawrence Jones

    Published Jul 1, 2025self-described: incident.io engineering team

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  64. Positive

    Rory Bain, Product Engineer at incident.io

    How we're shipping faster with Claude Code and Git WorktreesEngineering blog post, incident.io blog

    incident.io engineers run several Claude Code agents in parallel via Git worktrees and plan mode; one US$8 session delivered an 18% faster API generation step, though architecture stays human-led.

    Published Jun 27, 2025self-described: incident.io, product engineering team

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-27, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code with plan mode, run across Git worktrees
  65. Positive

    Kieran Klaassen and Nityesh Agarwal, Cora team at Every

    How Two Engineers Ship Like a Team of 15 With AI AgentsPodcast episode (recap page with video), Every (AI & I podcast)

    Every's two-person Cora team uses a Claude Code custom command to turn rough ideas into detailed GitHub issues, reviews the plans, then has Claude implement them.

    "…when we are using the workflow that just showed to create a GitHub, a very detailed GitHub issue then it's very tempting to start another Claude Code to ask it to just, hey, go now work on this GitHub issue and fix…"
    Transcript excerpt, Nityesh Agarwal, around 30:00 in the episodePartial support

    Published Jun 11, 2025self-described: Every, two-person Cora engineering team

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; not counted, tied to the vendor How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Claude Code partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    program member (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-11, Claude 4, needs a recheck
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Reliability, run stability: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code custom commands; Claude 4 era
  66. Positive

    Diwank Singh, Julep

    Field Notes From Shipping Real Code With ClaudePersonal blog post, diwank.space

    Describes how Julep ships production code daily with Claude under a CLAUDE.md that tells the agent never to modify tests, change API contracts or alter migration files. Humans write the tests, and AI-assisted commits are tagged so reviewers pay extra attention.

    "Next, I’ll walk you through the infrastructure we use at Julep to ship production code daily with Claude’s help."
    Excerpt, Diwank Singh

    Published Jun 7, 2025self-described: Julep, AI workflow orchestration; a backend with years of accumulated decisions

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-07, Sonnet 3.7, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Very small team
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  67. Mixed

    Alex Ghiculescu, co-founder of Tanda

    Nobody Codes Here AnymoreNewsletter, Alex Ghiculescu's Newsletter (Substack)

    Rolling out Cursor and Claude Code to about 40 developers, Tanda's co-founder finds Claude Code great at refactors but subtly wrong on bug fixes, estimating roughly 20% productivity gains.

    Published Apr 29, 2025self-described: Tanda, about 40 developers, 12-year-old Ruby on Rails SaaS codebase

    Practitioner account, self-described; ran the rollout; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran the rollout; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran the rollout
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-04-29, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Technical leadership
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code on pay-per-token billing
  68. Mixed

    Alessio Ferri, Thoughtworks

    Claude Code saved us 97% of the work on the first try. Then it failed utterly.Engineering blog post, Thoughtworks Insights blog

    With a subject expert, Claude Code added Python support to Thoughtworks' CodeConcise in half a day, against two to four weeks for a developer pair. Three JavaScript attempts failed: the grammar would not work, then it used libraries that did not exist, then internal packages that did not exist. The author says the agent lacks stronger verification.

    Published Mar 10, 2025self-described: Thoughtworks team building the CodeConcise legacy-modernization tool

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-03-10, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Professional team
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Code shortly after its February 2025 release
  69. No opinion stated

    ParticularFan1122, Reddit r/ChatGPTCoding poster, frontend developer about 3 years in

    They replaced our two backend devs with me and Claude CodeReddit post

    A frontend developer handed two departed seniors' backend services shipped 31 pull requests in 4 weeks with Claude Code, with no human reviewer left and only an automated reviewer on each pull request.

    Published Oct 23, 2026self-described: Company that let two senior backend developers go; payments and public API services

    Not counted

    Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  70. Positive

    Maanav Agrawal, founder building Memoir

    X post by @MaanavA51108X post

    Five parallel Claude Code chats on one product duplicated work and lost decisions until Agrawal made one chat a manager that keeps a shared board. Its first sweep found about 20 decisions that had never left their chat.

    "…its first sweep found ~20 decisions that had never left the chat they were made in."
    Excerpt, Maanav Agrawal

    Published Oct 21, 2026self-described: Five parallel Claude Code chats on one product

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-10-21
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  71. Negative

    Chris_Newton, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Meta and Microsoft take steps to reduce employee usage of Claude AIHacker News comment

    A routine migration with Claude Code cost about two months of Pro in API tokens, drifted off topic, needed constant supervision and cleanup, and was slower than doing it by hand.

    Published Oct 8, 2026self-described: Company work on a long-lived web application, using API tokens

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on the latest Opus
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-10-08, the latest Opus
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Latest Opus, API billing
  72. Mixed

    Elie Bakouch, research engineer, Prime Intellect

    AI Engineer: We Let Claude Code and Codex Race Human ResearchersConference talk video

    Against a public optimizer speedrun, Claude Code on Opus 4.8 beat the human record by 50 to 60 steps, but sat idle about a third of the time while Codex ran almost continuously and burned more tokens.

    "So basically onethird of the time the cloud code agent was idle because I had no way to basically monitor it and codeex totally the opposite just worked for all the all the time and uh yeah almost never idle never asked for question…"
    Transcript excerpt, Elie Bakouch (automatic captions), at 8:12

    Published Sep 26, 2026self-described: Prime Intellect, automated research on its cluster

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code on Opus 4.8; Codex on GPT-5.5
  73. Positive

    btown, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Launch HN: Skillsync (YC W26), AI chat sessions made portable across agentsHacker News comment

    Their team relies on a homegrown resume skill that reads a colleague's whole Claude Code session file into context, so people can merge each other's sessions and pick up their work.

    Published Sep 17, 2026self-described: Team that shares Claude Code sessions between colleagues

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-09-17
    Not counted
    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  74. Negative

    jermaustin1, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"Hacker News comment

    At one client they must integrate code upper management generates with Claude: often hundreds of lines in the wrong language, using libraries the client cannot license and ignoring the codebase. Their job is now reviewing managers' Claude output.

    Published Aug 29, 2026self-described: Contract developer integrating code a client's managers generate with Claude

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; second-hand; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Second-hand
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Reports others' experience
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-08-29
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  75. Positive

    DHH, chief technology officer, 37signals

    Lex Fridman Podcast #501: DHH on the future of programming and agentic engineeringPodcast episode with publisher transcript

    DHH drives his agent work in Claude Code, which he calls the best harness for running several agents, and ends every job with a Codex review at xhigh effort.

    "I’ve mainly been driving with Claude, which is actually interesting because I have some other reservations about Anthropic. But the reason I’m sticking with Claude is, in my opinion, they actually have the best harness."
    Transcript excerpt, DHH, around 2:39:24 in the episode

    Published Aug 26, 2026self-described: 37signals and Omarchy, his own agent work

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with Opus 5 or Fable; Codex at xhigh effort as reviewer
  76. Mixed

    Johann Rehberger, security researcher, Embrace The Red

    Breaking Claude Code Opus 5 Auto ModeIndependent security evaluation, Embrace The Red

    A website summary request led Claude Code with Opus 5 in Auto Mode to run attacker code in up to 80% of a small number of runs. A test Anthropic commissioned found 0.00%. Rehberger concludes Auto Mode does not replace running the agent in an isolated environment.

    "I got attack success rates up to 80% using a small sample size."
    Excerpt, Johann Rehberger

    Published Aug 26, 2026self-described: Red-team test of Claude Code's default Auto Mode against a malicious website

    Practitioner account, self-described; structured test; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Ran a structured test; Artifact checked (benchmark output); Observed on Opus 5
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    1 artifact (benchmark output)
    Date and version
    2026-08-26, Opus 5
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code with Opus 5 in Auto Mode, the default starting mode since mid-August 2026
  77. Negative

    cybersec47, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Kimi K3-256kHacker News comment

    On hard reverse-engineering work, hitting Claude Code's 1M context and summarizing made it repeat failed approaches like an amnesiac; cybersec47 canceled and prefers Codex's context handling.

    Published Jul 30, 2026self-described: Hard reverse-engineering and research tasks

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-30
    Not counted
    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    1M context window
  78. Negative

    Anurag Singh, tech writer at XDA Developers

    I cancelled Claude after 6 months of daily use: here's what went wrongFirst-person review column, XDA Developers

    Canceled after six months because Claude Code drained the shared US$20 Pro allowance, so fixing its mistakes cost scarce usage. Moved to Codex with GPT-5.6 Sol.

    "I’ve almost never started and completed a project in a single Claude Code session because I nearly always run out of usage and have to wait for the limit to reset. Instead of waiting, I usually end up moving the project to either Codex or Antigravity."
    Excerpt, Anurag Singh

    Published Jul 27, 2026self-described: Own technical projects on the US$20 Pro plan

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on $20 plan
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-27, $20 plan
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, continuity: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Pro plan (US$20/month), Opus 4.8
  79. Positive

    deterministic, Maintainer of a large, business-critical C++ application

    Comment on: AI is a bad toolHacker News comment

    Says Claude Code routinely handles large, complex changes correctly; deterministic reviews every line and now mostly directs, reviews and tests.

    Published Jul 16, 2026self-described: C++ application of over a million lines used by major international companies

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-07-16
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  80. Negative

    isusmelj, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude TagHacker News comment

    Every new Anthropic feature, Claude Code included, arrives with metered usage and no spending limit by default for their team organization. An admin has to visit the usage page to set a cap.

    Published Jun 23, 2026self-described: Team organization on an Anthropic plan

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-23
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  81. Mixed

    teekert, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude Code scans your whole drive, admits it when caughtHacker News comment

    After Claude in the Zed editor listed their SSH private keys with a few ls commands, they run Claude Code only in a container. Their organization asks everyone to use containers or a dedicated Linux user for AI agents.

    Published Jun 20, 2026self-described: Organization that runs AI agents only in containers or scoped Linux users

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-06-20
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  82. No opinion stated

    toraway, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuationHacker News comment

    Developers at their company pushed for Claude Code, but legal stalled any Anthropic contract after the Defense Department blacklisting. They moved the team from Copilot Business to OpenAI Business with Codex.

    Published May 29, 2026self-described: Engineer who recommends the company's AI coding subscriptions

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, takes no position How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Opinion
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Opinion, no use stated
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-29
    Not counted
    no aspect: excluded, takes no position on any assessed aspect

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  83. Mixed

    Karan Goyal, Senior Shopify developer

    Codex vs Claude Code: Why I Switched for Daily DevelopmentPersonal blog post, karangoyal.cc

    Moved most daily coding to Codex for slightly faster iteration, better product and SEO writing, more context room and image generation in the ChatGPT Pro plan. Still rates Claude Code among the strongest coding agents used and keeps it as a second opinion.

    Published May 27, 2026self-described: Solo client work: Shopify apps, Next.js pages, SEO and content

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-26
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  84. Negative

    jvidalv, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: The Eternal SloptemberHacker News comment

    On a 200-engineer legacy codebase, quality is degrading faster as Claude Code adoption grows across the engineering team. On a fresh five-engineer codebase it works well, though nobody fully knows how the code works.

    Published May 25, 2026self-described: Ten-year-old codebase shared by more than 200 engineers, plus a five-engineer codebase

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-25
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  85. No opinion stated

    StoriesWithGR, Reddit r/ExperiencedDevs poster with about 20 years in software, including chief technology officer and founder roles

    Went back to Autocomplete after Claude Code & Codex! Agentic AI really is a trap!Reddit post

    A developer with about 20 years of experience used Claude Code and Codex in plan mode at maximum effort on a complex crawler task, found the plans' justifications unreliable, and went back to autocomplete.

    Published May 13, 2026self-described: Solo, a crawler with a custom session algorithm on CrawleeJS

    Not counted

    Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code CLI and VS Code extension on Opus 4.7 and 4.6 at max effort
  86. Negative

    Akos Komuves, Developer with a day job, writing about side projects

    Why I Cancelled My Claude Code and ChatGPT Pro Subscriptions (for Side Projects)Newsletter, Bitsy (Substack newsletter)

    Canceled Claude Code Pro for side projects because it burned through quota and felt less reliable after the adaptive thinking rollout. Switched to OpenCode Go with Kimi K2.6.

    Published May 10, 2026self-described: Side projects, including HRS (a TUI time tracker)

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Observed on Claude Code Pro
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-05-10, Claude Code Pro
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance, C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Reliability, regressions: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, measured outcomes: a lead (G0), counts toward nothing until substantiated

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Code Pro plan
  87. No opinion stated

    theov666, Reddit r/ExperiencedDevs poster

    How are you handling project conventions across Cursor / Claude Code / Copilot?Reddit post

    A team split across Cursor, Claude Code and Copilot keeps the same rules in .cursorrules, CLAUDE.md and Copilot's instructions file, and the copies drift until a tool suggests a banned pattern.

    Published May 9, 2026self-described: A team split across Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot and a CI job on the Anthropic API

    Not counted

    Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  88. Mixed

    sfink, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's confession is belowHacker News comment

    Inside a restrictive firejail, Claude Code still found the employer-owned API key under ~/.claude. sfink rotated the keys and continues to use it with caution.

    Published Apr 27, 2026self-described: Work use with an employer-owned API key, sandboxed in firejail

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-27
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Operational control, data control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  89. Negative

    delegate, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's confession is belowHacker News comment

    Told that a backup existed, Claude Code deleted an entire non-production database the commenter still needed when it was only supposed to drop one table.

    Published Apr 27, 2026self-described: Local database work outside production, with a backup taken first

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (transcript)
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    1 artifact (transcript)
    Date and version
    2026-04-27
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  90. Negative

    bmitc, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: An update on recent Claude Code quality reportsHacker News comment

    At their company of tens of thousands, the churn in Claude Code has become a major issue and made the lack of stability and of customer support from Anthropic widely visible.

    Published Apr 25, 2026self-described: Company with tens of thousands of employees

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Opinion
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Opinion, no use stated
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-25
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, ongoing upkeep: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  91. Negative

    stan_kirdey, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: I cancelled Claude: Token issues, declining quality, and poor supportHacker News comment

    Canceled after the Pro plan became unusable for real work and the US$200 Max allowance shrank from a week to a few days, alongside a quality drop and unpredictable token use.

    Published Apr 24, 2026self-described: Paid subscriber on the US$20 Pro plan, then the US$200 Max plan

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on $20 Pro plan; $200 Max plan; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-24, $20 Pro plan; $200 Max plan
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Pro (US$20) and Max (US$200) plans
  92. Mixed

    Simon Willison, Independent developer and blogger who teaches Claude Code

    Is Claude Code going to cost US$100/month? Probably not, it's all very confusingPersonal blog post, simonwillison.net (Simon Willison's Weblog)

    Reacting to an unannounced pricing test that moved Claude Code off the US$20 Pro plan, Willison argues that the US$200 Max plan is worth it but the episode shook trust in Anthropic's pricing.

    Published Apr 22, 2026self-described: Pays for their own Max plan; runs coding agent tutorials

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Claude Code partner: not counted as independent; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Claude Max
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); sponsor (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-22, Claude Max
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Max (US$200/month)
  93. Negative

    sassymuffinz, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: ChatGPT Pro now starts at US$100/monthHacker News comment

    After a week of Claude Code sassymuffinz felt disconnected from their codebase and fatigued by reviewing generated code, canceled, and returned to VS Code with occasional Copilot.

    Published Apr 9, 2026self-described: One-week trial on their own codebase; normally VS Code with occasional Copilot

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-09
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  94. Mixed

    Chandler Nguyen, self-taught builder

    Why I Cancelled Claude Max After 13 Months and What I'm Testing with Codex NextPersonal blog post, chandlernguyen.com

    Canceled Claude Max after 13 months and US$1,892.38 because US$20 Codex was converging in quality, citing Anthropic reliability issues and a slower Opus 4.6.

    Published Apr 3, 2026self-described: Solo, own products (STRATUM, DIALOGUE, course platform, personal site)

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on Opus 4.6 with the 1M context window
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-04-03, Opus 4.6 with the 1M context window
    Counts toward
    Reliability, service availability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Max (US$200/month), Opus 4.6 with 1M context
  95. Mixed

    Stella Laurenzo (stellaraccident), engineer running Claude Code fleets on IREE projects

    GitHub issue: Claude Code quality regression forced a fleet of sessions back to oneGitHub issue

    From 6,852 Claude Code session files, Laurenzo reported that February work produced 191,000 lines of merged code from 1,498 API requests, and that a regression from March forced her to shut a fleet of 5 to 10 sessions down to one.

    "1,498 API requests produced 191,000 lines of merged code."
    Excerpt, Stella Laurenzo

    Published Apr 2, 2026self-described: IREE compiler projects, 5 to 10 or more concurrent sessions

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  96. Mixed

    gurachek, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Go hard on agents, not on your filesystemHacker News comment

    Using Claude Code daily for months, their worst incident was it creating a folder that silently broke their blog's routing, subtle harm that sandboxing would not catch.

    Published Mar 28, 2026self-described: Solo, personal blog on Apache

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-28
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  97. Mixed

    karenrebecag, GitHub user

    [BUG] Claude Max plan session limits exhausted abnormally fast since March 23, 2026 (CLI usage)GitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    From March 23, 2026, the same Claude Code workload on the Max plan used up the five-hour session window in one to two hours, with nothing changed on the reporter's side.

    "With the exact same workload and prompts as previous days, the usage limit is now hit within 1-2 hours instead of the usual full 5-hour window."
    Excerpt, karenrebecag

    Published Mar 24, 2026self-described: Max plan through the Claude Code CLI, same workload each day

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 2.1.42
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-24, 2.1.42
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relevance

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Max plan
  98. Mixed

    Haustorium12, GitHub user

    Feature Request: Persistent Memory Across Context Compactions (59 compactions, built our own)GitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    After 59 context compactions in 26 days of heavy daily use, each of which lost whatever was not saved outside the session, the reporter built a three-level memory system of their own.

    "After 59 documented compactions across 26 days of daily use, I built a complete memory persistence system from scratch because one didn't exist."
    Excerpt, Haustorium12

    Published Mar 15, 2026self-described: 12 to 18 hours a day across two machines and six active projects

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-03-15
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Current
  99. Positive

    cebert, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: What's it like working in big tech recently with all the AI tools?Hacker News comment

    Their team adopted Claude Code extensively and closes significantly more pull requests each day and week. Teams on legacy codebases get less from it, and results vary with how much care people put into prompts and plans.

    Published Feb 26, 2026self-described: US$20 billion technology company with an enterprise subscription; TypeScript team

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Observed on enterprise subscription
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-26, enterprise subscription
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  100. Positive

    sothatsit, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Hugging Face SkillsHacker News comment

    At work the team wrote CLIs for systems such as Jira plus skills describing how the company organizes them. Claude Code loads those skills reliably whenever someone mentions Jira or an issue number, while documentation-only skills load less reliably.

    Published Feb 24, 2026self-described: Engineering team that wrote CLIs and skills for its internal systems

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-24
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  101. Positive

    raw_anon_1111, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and executionHacker News comment

    Their consulting company runs Claude Code on Anthropic models in Amazon Bedrock: its own AWS account for internal work and each client's account for client work. Client secrets stay under the clients' existing AWS agreements.

    Published Feb 22, 2026self-described: US consulting company on an enterprise plan

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on enterprise plan
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-22, enterprise plan
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Operational control, data control: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  102. Mixed

    nullbio, GitHub user

    [BUG] [URGENT!!!] Claude Code is hanging / freezing / stuck on heaps of prompts for 5-20minutes or more.GitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    Since about the Opus 4.6 release, Claude Code often sat "thinking" for 5 to 20 minutes with no token use; packet inspection showed it waiting on server events from Anthropic.

    "Claude gets stuck "thinking" for ~5-20 minutes, and sometimes even longer."
    Excerpt, nullbio

    Published Feb 17, 2026self-described: Daily Claude Code use since the Opus 4.6 release

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 2.1.38
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-17, 2.1.38
    Counts toward
    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Opus 4.6
  103. Mixed

    Mitchell Hashimoto, Ghostty

    My AI Adoption JourneyPersonal blog post, mitchellh.com

    Was unimpressed by early Claude Code sessions, touching up everything it produced in more time than doing the work, so reproduced each manual commit with an agent to learn. Later turned repeated agent mistakes into lines in Ghostty's AGENTS.md, which almost completely resolved them.

    "I felt I had to touch up everything it produced and this process was taking more time than if I had just done it myself."
    Excerpt, Mitchell Hashimoto

    Published Feb 5, 2026self-described: Ghostty terminal and his own projects

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-02-05
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  104. Mixed

    btown, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Auto-compact not triggering on Claude.ai despite being marked as fixedHacker News comment

    Works around context limits by having Claude Code write a summary and TODO list then restarting fresh, and says missing VS Code checkpoints hamper rolling it out to their team.

    Published Jan 23, 2026self-described: Uses Claude Code and encourages their team to use it

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    1 artifact (issue)
    Date and version
    2026-01-23
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  105. Positive

    antirez, Redis developer

    Don't fall into the anti-AI hypePersonal blog post, antirez.com

    In one week Claude Code fixed antirez's flaky Redis tests by reproducing the timing bugs, and wrote a 700-line C library for BERT-style embeddings in five minutes. Given his design document, it redid a Redis Streams change in about 20 minutes.

    "Claude Code iterated for all the time needed to reproduce it, inspected the state of the processes to understand what was happening, and fixed the bugs."
    Excerpt, antirez

    Published Jan 11, 2026self-described: Redis and his own C libraries

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-01-11
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  106. Mixed

    h3d0, GitHub user

    [Bug] Excessive token usage in Claude Code 2.1.1 - 4x+ faster rate consumption than previous versionsGitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    After updating to Claude Code 2.1.1, a Max user who rarely passed half the weekly cap hit the five-hour limit more than four times faster on the same projects and routine.

    "I am working on the same projects for months, same routines, same time. But today it hits 5h limits like 4+ times faster!"
    Excerpt, h3d0

    Published Jan 8, 2026self-described: Max plan; the same projects and routine for months

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Observed on 2.1.1
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    1 artifact (log)
    Date and version
    2026-01-08, 2.1.1
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Reliability, regressions: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code 2.1.1, Max plan, Opus
  107. Positive

    Ethan Mollick, One Useful Thing

    Claude Code and What Comes NextNewsletter post, One Useful Thing (Substack)

    From a single request, Claude Code on Opus 4.5 interviewed Mollick and worked on its own for over an hour. It launched a working site that sold prompt packs, with no errors he could find.

    "…it worked for over an hour independently, and then gave me exactly what I asked for, without any discernible errors."
    Excerpt, Ethan Mollick

    Published Jan 7, 2026self-described: Nontechnical user building and launching a small web business

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Observed on Opus 4.5; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2026-01-07, Opus 4.5
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
    Observed on
    Claude Code on Opus 4.5
  108. Positive

    Sepehr Khosravi, machine learning platform engineer, Coinbase

    AI Native Dev: What AI Engineering Looks Like at Meta, Coinbase, ServiceTitan and ThoughtWorksPodcast episode video

    A Coinbase platform engineer does 80 to 90% of his work in Cursor and starts deep, difficult tasks in Claude Code, which takes more tokens and usually gives a better engineered answer.

    "Cursor's good cuz it gives you the visual ID. You can see what you're doing. It's faster than Claude Code is, uses less tokens, and you can switch between different AI models. But if you're trying to go deep on a task that's difficult, Claude Code does a lot more thinking, takes up a lot more tokens, but usually gives you a better engineered answer."
    Transcript excerpt, Sepehr Khosravi (automatic captions), at 12:09

    Published Jan 6, 2026self-described: Coinbase, which tracks AI use per developer

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  109. Mixed

    godzillafarts, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Scaling LLMs to Larger CodebasesHacker News comment

    Turned research, plan and implement prompts into custom Claude Code commands for the team's stack. It works exceptionally well for them because they review each phase closely, but it has not taken off across the team.

    Published Dec 22, 2025self-described: Engineering team that adapted HumanLayer's context-engineering prompts for its own stack

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-12-22
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  110. Positive

    thyb23, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?Hacker News comment

    After trying many AI coding tools thyb23 calls Claude Code on the Max plan with Opus 4.5 their best investment of the year, stressing verification commands and fresh context per task.

    Published Dec 14, 2025self-described: Max plan with Opus 4.5, after trying Gemini CLI, Cursor, Codex CLI, and Antigravity

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Observed on Claude Max plan; Opus 4.5
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-12-14, Claude Max plan; Opus 4.5
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Max plan, Opus 4.5
  111. Negative

    tobyhede, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: The 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective AgentsHacker News comment

    A starfield feature tobyhede expected to take an afternoon took two weeks and three rewrites with Claude Code, with confident wrong plans, hallucinated APIs and ignored project instructions.

    Published Dec 13, 2025self-described: Solo side project, Rust game with Bevy

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-12-13
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  112. Positive

    loandbehold, Remote developer

    Comment on: Has the cost of building software dropped 90%?Hacker News comment

    As a remote developer, loandbehold finishes in about one hour with Claude Code work that used to take eight, a larger gain than teammates get from Copilot.

    Published Dec 8, 2025self-described: Remote developer on a team that uses GitHub Copilot

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-12-08
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  113. Negative

    Mario Zechner, Independent developer, coach and speaker

    What I learned building an opinionated and minimal coding agentPersonal blog post, mariozechner.at

    Preferred Claude Code while it was basic, but says it became a spaceship with 80% of functionality Zechner has no use for, whose system prompt and tools change every release and which flickers. Calls its sub-agents a black box with zero visibility, and built pi, a minimal agent.

    Published Nov 30, 2025self-described: Solo; built their own open source coding agent (pi) after using Claude Code

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
  114. Negative

    hamasho, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Anti-patterns while working with LLMsHacker News comment

    Told Claude Code to work only on their own development instance; after a while it switched to the shared team instance named in the AWS listing and wrote to it.

    Published Nov 28, 2025self-described: Team sharing several AWS development instances

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-28
    Not counted
    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  115. Positive

    Brian John, principal full-stack engineer, AI enablement for R&D, BetterUp

    AI Engineer: Hacking Subagents Into Codex CLIConference talk video

    BetterUp's AI enablement lead has used Claude Code as his daily driver since its release and relies on its sub-agents; he added the Codex CLI to avoid lock-in to one model family.

    "I've been using Clog Code as my daily driver since the very beginning. It's a great tool. It's got tons of bells and whistles. It's got great models, and I use sub agents all the time. But I don't want to be locked in to one tool, and I really don't want to be locked in to one model family."
    Transcript excerpt, Brian John (automatic captions), at 0:59

    Published Nov 24, 2025self-described: BetterUp R&D AI enablement

    Published on
    Podcasts, Talks & Videos
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Current
  116. No opinion stated

    ewoodrich, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Microsoft AI CEO pushes back against critics after recent Windows AI backlashHacker News comment

    When their manager asked for a team subscription, Anthropic offered no plan with a predictable monthly cost for Claude Code under SSO and managed billing. The team bought GitHub Copilot Business at a flat seat price.

    Published Nov 20, 2025self-described: Team whose manager asked for one AI coding subscription for everyone

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; opinion; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Opinion
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Opinion, no use stated
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-20
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
  117. Mixed

    solst/ICE (@IceSolst), security engineer

    X post by @IceSolstX post

    Running Claude Code overnight in a loop on a detailed task list cost US$300 of employer tokens and gave irrecoverable results. The author concludes it speeds up work you already understand and fails without handholding.

    "…spent $300 worth of my employer’s tokens running Claude Code overnight in a loop - disastrous results, irrecoverable…"
    Excerpt, solst/ICE

    Published Nov 15, 2025self-described: Overnight Claude Code loop on a detailed task list, paid with employer tokens

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, author profile, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-15
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  118. Positive

    Filippo Valsorda, open source maintainer

    Claude Code Can Debug Low-level CryptographyPersonal blog post, words.filippo.io

    Given failing tests on his new Go ML-DSA code, Claude Code found a complex low-level verification bug within minutes and later found two planted bugs. Valsorda replaced its mediocre fix with his own. He discloses that Anthropic gave him free Claude Max.

    "Instead, it rapidly figured out a fairly complex low-level bug in my implementation of a relatively novel cryptography algorithm."
    Excerpt, Filippo Valsorda

    Published Nov 1, 2025self-described: Go standard library cryptography; a new ML-DSA implementation

    Practitioner account; structured test; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Claude Code partner: not counted as independent; Ran a structured test; Specific details; Observed on Claude Code v2.0.28 with Opus 4.1
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    program member (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Ran a structured test
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-11-01, Claude Code v2.0.28 with Opus 4.1
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: excluded, praise from someone tied to the vendor, kept as an attributed position

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Claude Code v2.0.28, Opus 4.1; Claude Max given free by Anthropic, disclosed
  119. Mixed

    Simon Willison, Independent developer and blogger

    Living dangerously with ClaudeAnnotated talk on personal blog, simonwillison.net (Simon Willison's Weblog)

    Says YOLO mode makes Claude Code feel like a different product that finished three side projects in 48 hours, but warns prompt injection means running it in a sandbox.

    Published Oct 22, 2025self-described: Solo, side projects and research experiments

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-10-22, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  120. Mixed

    Mike Wolak, developer

    [BUG] ## CRITICAL: Claude Code executed rm -rf deleting entire home directoryGitHub issue

    Reports Claude Code ran a recursive delete while rebuilding a Makefile project, wiping all user files in their home directory, with the log missing the actual command.

    Published Oct 21, 2025self-described: Own firmware project on Ubuntu under WSL2

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Artifact checked (log)
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    1 artifact (log)
    Date and version
    2025-10-21, 2.0.22, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Reliability, regressions: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Code 2.0.22, Sonnet (default)
  121. Positive

    kelvinjps10, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Claude Code on the webHacker News comment

    Switched from Codex to Claude Code for fewer bugs and better features such as vim prompt editing and shell use, preferring to give it small tasks and work alongside it.

    Published Oct 20, 2025self-described: Terminal work after trying Codex; vim prompt editing and shell tools

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-10-20, needs a recheck
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  122. Negative

    Peter Steinberger, Independent developer

    Just Talk To It - the no-bs Way of Agentic EngineeringPersonal blog post, steipete.me

    Steinberger used to love Claude Code but moved to Codex, citing Claude's tone, success claims while tests fail, frequent compaction, freezes, memory use and flicker.

    Published Oct 14, 2025self-described: Solo, ~300k LOC TypeScript React app plus extension and CLI

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-10-14, Sonnet 4.0, Sonnet 4.5, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, continuity: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Switched daily driver to Codex CLI (gpt-5-codex); keeps 1 Anthropic subscription
  123. Mixed

    emcd, GitHub user

    [Meta] Unexpected change in Claude usage limits as of 2025-09-29. (30+ reports)GitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    On the Pro plan, emcd got about 40 to 50 hours a week of Claude Code work before September 29, 2025, and about 6 to 8 hours after it. The post links more than 20 similar reports.

    "I am only able to use Claude Code for about 6 to 8 hours per week in terms of elapsed time when Claude is actually doing work…"
    Excerpt, emcd

    Published Oct 7, 2025self-described: Claude Pro subscriber using Claude Code daily

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-10-07, 2.0.9, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Reliability, regressions: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Pro plan, Claude Sonnet 4.5
  124. Positive

    Jesse Vincent, Independent developer

    How I'm using coding agents in September, 2025Personal blog post, blog.fsck.com (Massively Parallel Procrastination)

    Documents a brainstorm, plan, implement workflow in Claude Code with git worktrees, separate architect and implementer sessions, and clearing context, with no compaction.

    Published Oct 5, 2025self-described: Solo, 3-4 parallel projects on a single codebase

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-10-05, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  125. Mixed

    stavros, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Survey: a third of senior developers say over half their code is AI-generatedHacker News comment

    On the Max plan, Claude Code makes many mistakes so stavros must review everything; it mainly saves documentation lookups, and larger changes can make it slower overall.

    Published Sep 1, 2025self-described: Own development work on the Max plan; has it write small functions that stavros then composes

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-09-01, Max plan, needs a recheck
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Max plan
  126. Positive

    Chris Dzombak, software engineer

    Getting Good Results from Claude CodePersonal blog post, dzombak.com

    Claude Code let Dzombak write about 12 programs in little time, most of which he would not have built otherwise. He credits a written spec and a project guide for the agent, and reviews all AI-written code and tests by hand.

    "It is not without issues, but it's allowed me to write ~12 programs/projects in relatively little time…"
    Excerpt, Chris Dzombak

    Published Aug 8, 2025self-described: Personal projects, about 12 programs

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-08-08, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  127. Positive

    Eric Cheng, Software engineer

    My One-Month Journey with Claude CodePersonal blog post, DEV Community

    After a month, Eric Cheng calls Claude Code indispensable for codebase understanding and test-fix loops, but kept hitting usage and context limits and got an unexpected US$20 API charge.

    Published Aug 6, 2025self-described: Large refactoring project involving thousands of files

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-08-06, Claude 4 Sonnet, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Pro plan plus Console API account, then US$100 Max plan; Claude 4 Sonnet
  128. Mixed

    fdsf111, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: 6 weeks of Claude CodeHacker News comment

    In a one-week trial, Claude Code failed a non-trivial PDF pagination feature, excelled at pattern-following integration tests and built a working Go CLI; overall about 1.5X for them.

    Published Aug 2, 2025self-described: Developer at a company, Python/JavaScript work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-08-02, 7-day trial version, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    7-day trial
  129. Mixed

    chatgpt-copypasta, GitHub user

    Claude Code Memory Leak - Process Grows to 120+ GB RAM and Gets OOM KilledGitHub issue on anthropics/claude-code

    Claude Code 1.0.53 grew to more than 120 GB of RAM until the Linux OOM killer stopped it, about every 30 to 60 minutes of active use, with kernel logs attached.

    "Claude Code has a severe memory leak that causes the process to grow to over 120GB of RAM before being killed by the Linux OOM killer."
    Excerpt, chatgpt-copypasta

    Published Aug 1, 2025self-described: Ubuntu 24.04 machine with 128 GB of RAM, long coding sessions

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Reliability How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Artifact checked (log); Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    1 artifact (log)
    Date and version
    2025-08-01, 1.0.53, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G3 (3 units before bounds)

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Counts toward, pending a recheck

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Claude Code 1.0.53
  130. Positive

    sankalp (dejavucoder), Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: My experience with Claude Code after two weeks of adventuresHacker News comment

    Used Claude Code on a large Ruby and TypeScript open source codebase, letting it loop against specs and e2e tests, after a year on Cursor, with new CLAUDE.md files.

    Published Jul 17, 2025self-described: Solo, large open source Ruby + TypeScript codebase

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-17, Sonnet, needs a recheck
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Sonnet
  131. Positive

    sankalp (dejavucoder), Independent developer and AI engineering consultant

    My Experience With Claude Code After 2 Weeks of AdventuresPersonal blog post, sankalp.bearblog.dev (sankalp's blog)

    Two-week report after leaving Cursor's rate limits: Claude Code on the US$200 Max plan handled both codebases well, with tips on CLAUDE.md, scratchpads, plan mode and avoiding compaction.

    Published Jul 17, 2025self-described: Gumroad bounties and consulting; medium Python and large Ruby/TypeScript codebases

    Practitioner account; direct use; counts toward Reliability, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name unknown; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed); customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-17, Sonnet 4, Opus 4, 200 USD Claude Max subscription, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Operational control, models and deployment: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship, C-unknown-control
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    US$200 Max plan, Sonnet 4 and Opus 4, run inside Cursor
  132. Positive

    Kieran Klaassen, General manager of Cora at Every

    How I Use Claude Code to Ship Like a Team of FiveNewsletter essay (partly paywalled), Every (Source Code)

    Klaassen, who once dismissed Claude Code as too costly, says it now writes all the code shipped for Cora and opens every pull request. Parallel agents run in worktrees, managed like a team.

    Published Jul 16, 2025self-described: Building Cora, an AI email assistant, as its hands-on developer

    Practitioner account, name and role on their organization's own page; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Name and role on their organization's own page; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Artifact checked (organization page); Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name on a page the person does not control; employer on a page the person does not control; role on a page the person does not control (Member of Frontier Team)
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    6 artifacts (organization page)
    Date and version
    2025-07-16, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
  133. Positive

    Indragie Karunaratne, Engineer with a day job, building a side project

    I Shipped a macOS App Built Entirely by Claude CodePersonal blog post, indragie.com

    Shipped Context, a native macOS app almost entirely built by Claude Code, writing by hand an estimated under 1,000 of its 20,000 lines. Says Claude is competent with Swift features up to Swift 5.5, calls Swift Concurrency hard even for humans, and says Claude gets confused choosing between modern frameworks and legacy equivalents; its SwiftUI code works fairly well, and compaction is not perfect.

    Published Jul 1, 2025self-described: Solo side project, native macOS app (Context)

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Reliability, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-07-01, Sonnet 4 and Opus 4, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Reliability, run stability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Sonnet 4 and Opus 4
  134. Positive

    Armin Ronacher, Independent developer

    Agentic Coding RecommendationsPersonal blog post, lucumr.pocoo.org (Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings)

    Describes a Claude Code setup on the US$100 Max plan with Sonnet and permission checks off, and argues that simple code, fast tools and clear logs make agents productive.

    Published Jun 12, 2025self-described: Solo, own apps and open source library work

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Customer of Claude Code; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-12, cheaper Max subscription for $100 a month, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: mixed, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Operational control, models and deployment: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Max plan (US$100/month), Sonnet only
  135. Positive

    lmeyerov, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Cursor 1.0Hacker News comment

    Spent about US$70 a day on pay-as-you-go Claude Code before moving to the US$100 and then US$200 Max plan, finding flat pricing liberating for long concurrent runs.

    Published Jun 5, 2025self-described: Solo; wrote an internal guide to their vibe-coding process

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; counts toward Cost predictability and limits, Adoption and upkeep How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Specific details; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-05, Max Plan ($100/mo), needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, limits in practice: mixed, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Counts toward
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds)
    Not counted
    Cost predictability and limits, cost transparency: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Measured
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    Max plan (US$100/mo, then US$200/mo), Claude 3.7 Sonnet
  136. Positive

    Peter Steinberger, Independent developer

    Claude Code is My ComputerPersonal blog post, steipete.me

    Runs Claude Code without permission prompts as a general computer interface for coding, commits, CI fixes and Mac setup, and says it saves an hour a day.

    Published Jun 3, 2025self-described: Solo, own Mac and personal projects

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Operational control, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer unknown; role unknown
    Relationship
    customer (self disclosed)
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-06-03, $200/month Max plan, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Operational control, execution control: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: favorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, context handling: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Reliability, run stability: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Adoption and upkeep, setup: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 29, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Still applicable
    Observed on
    Max plan (US$200/month), run with --dangerously-skip-permissions
  137. Mixed

    erenst, Hacker News commenter

    Comment on: Ask HN: Cursor or Windsurf?Hacker News comment

    On the US$100 Max plan, erenst found Claude Code fixed compile errors until the build passed, but erenst reviewed less and it sometimes claimed fixes that left bugs.

    Published May 12, 2025self-described: Solo, game development experiments; backend web development at work

    Practitioner account, pseudonymous; direct use; not counted, repeats a stronger account How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Pseudonymous; No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months
    Role
    Pseudonymous account; identity not pursued
    Relationship
    No tie to Claude Code found in GILD's check (byline, content disclosure, platform api profile); that is not proof none exists
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-05-12, $100 Max plan, needs a recheck
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: repeats a stronger account in its group
    Not counted
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: repeats a stronger account in its group

    Checked Oct 31, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Developer Communities
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck
    Observed on
    US$100 Max plan
  138. Positive

    Harper Reed, CEO of 2389 Research

    Basic Claude CodePersonal blog post, harper.blog (Harper Reed's Blog)

    Describes a spec and prompt-plan workflow in Claude Code that relies on TDD, linting, pre-commit hooks and CLAUDE.md, and notes it costs far more than Aider.

    Published May 8, 2025self-described: Own projects; notes their team follows a similar process

    Practitioner account, self-described; direct use; counts toward Delivered outcomes, Cost predictability and limits How GILD checked it
    Origin
    Published practitioner account
    Checked
    Self-described; Used it directly; Needs recheck after 12 months; Specific details
    Role
    Name self-described; employer self-described; role unknown
    Relationship
    Checked only from the record itself; an outside check is open
    How they know
    Used it directly
    Support
    No artifact or independent corroboration recorded
    Date and version
    2025-05-08, needs a recheck
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, task completion: favorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Delivered outcomes, correctness: unfavorable, G2 (2 units before bounds), capped: C-relationship
    Counts toward
    Cost predictability and limits, cost predictability: unfavorable, G1 (1 unit before bounds), capped: C-relationship

    Checked Oct 30, 2026 under gild-policy/1.0.0. The scorecard

    Published on
    Engineering Blogs & Reviews
    Who
    Individual practitioner
    Evidence
    Reported
    Applies to
    Needs a recheck

Product documentation 22

Pages from Anthropic, used to check facts for every group.

  1. Code Review

    Documents pull request review on GitHub for Team and Enterprise, billed on tokens through usage credits with no flat per-review price; a review never approves or blocks a merge.

    Checked Oct 25, 2026

  2. Overview

    Describes Claude Code as an agentic coding tool that reads a codebase, edits files, and runs commands, in the terminal, IDE, desktop app, and browser.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  3. Quickstart

    Covers installation and a first session; requires a paid Claude plan, a Console account, or a supported cloud provider.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  4. Common workflows

    Documents everyday workflows such as exploring a codebase, fixing bugs, refactoring, and writing tests.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  5. How Claude remembers your project

    Explains CLAUDE.md files at managed, user, project, and local scope, and reading AGENTS.md when no CLAUDE.md exists.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  6. Settings files and precedence

    Documents managed, command-line, project, and user settings, with managed settings taking precedence over every other level.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  7. Configure permissions

    Documents the permission modes, from Manual to auto and bypass, and the managed rules that disable modes for an organization.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  8. Authentication

    Documents sign-in through Claude for Teams or Enterprise, the Claude Console, or Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Foundry.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  9. Security

    Describes the permission model, auto mode as the starting mode, isolated cloud-session VMs, and team controls.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  10. Data usage

    States training and retention terms: commercial accounts are not used for training, consumer accounts are when the setting is on.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  11. Manage costs effectively

    Reports average enterprise cost per developer and documents spend limits for Team, Enterprise, and Console accounts.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  12. Track team usage with analytics

    Documents the Team and Enterprise dashboard: accepted lines, accept rate, active users, and pull requests with the GitHub integration.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  13. Monitoring

    Documents OpenTelemetry export of usage, cost, commit, and pull request metrics.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  14. Hooks reference

    Documents hooks that run at defined points in a session, and the managed setting that allows only managed hooks.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  15. Create custom subagents

    Describes subagents that run in their own context window with their own tools and permissions.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  16. Use Claude Code in VS Code

    Documents the VS Code extension, which also installs in VS Code forks through Open VSX.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  17. JetBrains IDEs

    Documents the plugin for IntelliJ, PyCharm, WebStorm, and other JetBrains IDEs.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  18. Claude Code GitHub Actions

    Documents running Claude Code in GitHub workflows, with Console API keys or cloud providers for organizations.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  19. Platforms and integrations

    Lists the surfaces Claude Code runs on, from the CLI and desktop app to the web, mobile, and Slack.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  20. Configure the sandboxed Bash tool

    Documents the operating-system sandbox for shell commands, which is off by default and unavailable on native Windows.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

  21. Model configuration

    Documents model defaults per plan, Opus 5.5 on paid plans and the API, and the settings that restrict models.

    Checked Oct 12, 2026

Source index

Provenance at a glance

Every source GILD read, with the original address and the context used to count it. Open a finding to filter the full cards above. On smaller screens the index lists each source once by name, cohort and date; its full record above carries the address, context and findings.

Provenance for every analyzed Signals source
SourceOriginal URLAuthor and contextWhoPublishedReview dateAppliesFindings
They replaced our two backend devs with me and Claude CodeID sf-24 | Developer Communitieswww.reddit.com/r/ChatGPTCoding/comments/1xd6091/they_replaced_our_two_backend_devs_with_me_and/ParticularFan1122, Reddit r/ChatGPTCoding poster, frontend developer about 3 years inself-described: Company that let two senior backend developers go; payments and public API servicesIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentNot counted. Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked.
X post by @MaanavA51108ID sx-28 | Developer Communitiesx.com/MaanavA51108/status/2112734568793202761Maanav Agrawal, founder building Memoirself-described: Five parallel Claude Code chats on one productIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 21, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
The big discount on intelligenceID sf-22 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsarunabhdastidar.substack.com/p/the-big-discount-on-intelligenceArunabh Dastidar, startup engineering leadself-described: A team of five engineers on Max and Pro plansVery small teamPublished Oct 12, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Meta and Microsoft take steps to reduce employee usage of Claude AIID dc-28 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=50001310Chris_Newton, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company work on a long-lived web application, using API tokensIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 8, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Ask HN: Is anybody producing good code with coding agents?ID dc-27 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49943630saluki, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team using Claude Code in the terminal, with pull request reviewVery small teamPublished Oct 3, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
AI Engineer: We Let Claude Code and Codex Race Human ResearchersID sf-8 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=oVsEddfhdxcElie Bakouch, research engineer, Prime Intellectself-described: Prime Intellect, automated research on its clusterIndividual practitionerPublished Sep 26, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Every: Vibe Check, Opus 5.5 Is Pulling Our Codex Converts Back to ClaudeID sf-14 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsevery.to/vibe-check/vibe-check-opus-5-5-is-pulling-our-codex-converts-back-to-claudeKatie Parrott, staff writer, Everyself-described: Every staff across evals, design and leadershipProfessional teamPublished Sep 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Trying the Software Factory pattern.ID sx-13 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewslethain.com/software-factory-experiment/Will Larson, Chief Technology Officer at Imprintself-described: Imprint, company-wide rollout across frontend, backend, infrastructure and data repositoriesOrganization-widePublished Sep 20, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Launch HN: Skillsync (YC W26), AI chat sessions made portable across agentsID tb-17 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49745346btown, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team that shares Claude Code sessions between colleaguesIndividual practitionerPublished Sep 17, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"ID tb-16 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491297jermaustin1, Hacker News commenterself-described: Contract developer integrating code a client's managers generate with ClaudeIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 29, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Gemini Omni 1.1 FlashID tb-15 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49471566mh-, Hacker News commenterself-described: Chief technology officer at a Google Cloud customer with an eight-figure annual commitTechnical leadershipPublished Aug 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Lex Fridman Podcast #501: DHH on the future of programming and agentic engineeringID sf-1 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoslexfridman.com/dhh-2-transcriptDHH, chief technology officer, 37signalsself-described: 37signals and Omarchy, his own agent workIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 26, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Breaking Claude Code Opus 5 Auto ModeID sx-15 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsembracethered.com/blog/posts/2026/breaking-claude-code-opus-5-and-automode/Johann Rehberger, security researcher, Embrace The Redself-described: Red-team test of Claude Code's default Auto Mode against a malicious websiteIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 26, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Slop DebtID dc-26 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49406419kren87, former tech leadself-described: Tech lead of a team measured by merge-request count and given fixed deadlinesVery small teamPublished Aug 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
AI Coding Benchmark: Claude Code vs CursorID sx-05 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsaimultiple.com/ai-coding-benchmarkSedat Dogan and Şevval Alper, AIMultipleself-described: Industry research firm; the same full-stack tasks run by CLI agents and AI code editorsProfessional teamPublished Aug 21, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How Superhuman Scaled AI Coding Agents Across Their Entire Eng OrgID sf-3 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbaZYBXFyIYaroslav (Yarik), tech lead for the coding-agent rollout, Superhumanself-described: Superhuman, formerly Grammarly, engineering organizationOrganization-widePublished Aug 18, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentNot counted. Superhuman took part in an early Claude Code beta that Anthropic offered it.
Comment on: AI Coding and Its DiscontentsID dc-25 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49278396jaegerpicker, Hacker News commenterself-described: Engineer with 25 years of experience; their team plans, codes, and verifies tickets with ClaudeVery small teamPublished Aug 12, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Kimi K3-256kID dc-24 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49105377cybersec47, Hacker News commenterself-described: Hard reverse-engineering and research tasksIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 30, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
I cancelled Claude after 6 months of daily use: here's what went wrongID ir-30 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.xda-developers.com/cancelled-claude-6-months-daily-use-what-went-wrong/Anurag Singh, tech writer at XDA Developersself-described: Own technical projects on the US$20 Pro planIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation modelsID dc-23 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=49063231throwatdem12311, Only staff engineer at a companyself-described: Small company, half-million-line codebase, reviewing PRs from 3 offshore developersVery small teamPublished Jul 26, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Who's afraid of Chinese models?ID tb-14 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48987839aurareturn, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company that standardized on ClaudeOrganization-widePublished Jul 21, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: AI is a bad toolID dc-22 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48930059deterministic, Maintainer of a large, business-critical C++ applicationself-described: C++ application of over a million lines used by major international companiesIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 16, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Choosing the right tool safety approach for coding agentsID sx-17 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.scottlogic.com/2026/07/15/choosing-the-right-tool-safety-approach-for-coding-agents.htmlRobat Williams, developer at Scott LogicScott Logic, software consultancy; hardening coding agent setupsProfessional teamPublished Jul 15, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Agentic Coding at ClickHouseID ld-07 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsclickhouse.com/blog/agentic-codingAlexey Milovidov, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer at ClickHouseClickHouse engineering, large C++ codebase, company-wide agent useTechnical leadershipPublished Jul 14, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Write code like a human will maintain itID dc-21 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48862462radlad, Hacker News commenterself-described: Workplace with about two engineers per service; runs several Claude Code sessions on unrelated workVery small teamPublished Jul 10, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Godot will no longer accept AI-authored code contributionsID dc-20 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48747894maiybe, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team building a Godot mobile app, with shared Claude skills for writing and auditing pull requestsVery small teamPublished Jul 1, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
DX Engineering Enablement: How structured AI training scaled developer productivityID sf-6 | Podcasts, Talks & Videosgetdx.com/podcast/how-structured-ai-training-scaled-developer-productivity/Michael Redding, Principal Product Manager, IndeedIndeed engineering, about 2,000 engineersOrganization-widePublished Jun 29, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Tokenmaxxing is dead, long live tokenmaxxingID tb-13 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48709313linsomniac, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company AI lead; most employees on US$20 monthly plansTechnical leadershipPublished Jun 28, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Latent Space: Matei Zaharia of Databricks at Data + AI Summit 2026ID sf-12 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoslatent.space/p/databricks/Matei Zaharia, co-founder, Databricksself-described: Databricks developer infrastructureOrganization-widePublished Jun 24, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentListed, no finding position
Comment on: Claude TagID tb-11 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48650048thewebguyd, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company that rolled Claude Cowork out to all non-technical staff on Microsoft TeamsOrganization-widePublished Jun 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Claude TagID tb-12 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48651822isusmelj, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team organization on an Anthropic planIndividual practitionerPublished Jun 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Scaling Myself: How I Run 22 Claude Code Sessions for DS4 MigrationID ir-29 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.mercari.com/en/blog/entry/20260619-scaling-myself-how-i-run-22-claude-code-sessions-for-ds4-migration/cyan, iOS engineer on the Mercoin (MC) Client teamself-described: Mercari / Mercoin client team, design-system migrationProfessional teamPublished Jun 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Claude Code scans your whole drive, admits it when caughtID tb-10 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48607246teekert, Hacker News commenterself-described: Organization that runs AI agents only in containers or scoped Linux usersIndividual practitionerPublished Jun 20, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Doubling the productivity of your engineering team using AI (Brian Scanlan)ID tc-03 | Podcasts, Talks & Videosnewsletter.getdx.com/p/doubling-the-productivity-of-yourBrian Scanlan, Senior Principal Systems Engineer at Intercomself-described: Intercom R&D organizationOrganization-widePublished Jun 15, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Agentic Testing: Where Agents Fit in the E2E Testing StackID ld-05 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsslack.engineering/agentic-testing-where-agents-fit-in-the-e2e-testing-stack/Sergii Gorbachov, Staff Software Engineer at SlackSlack end-to-end testing, more than 200 agent runs in test workspacesProfessional teamPublished Jun 11, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Anthropic/OpenAI may be spending more than US$1000 for every US$100 you pay themID dc-19 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48434825jabart, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team on a Claude Team plan, working in a codebase of millions of linesVery small teamPublished Jun 7, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
A UI Framework Migration in the Age of AI: How We Migrated Svelte 4 to 5 with Claude Code in Six HoursID ld-10 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.atolio.com/blog/svelte-4-to-5-migration-with-claude-codePablo Arellano, Software Developer at AtolioAtolio engineering team, Svelte front end with thousands of filesProfessional teamPublished Jun 4, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Coding Is No Longer the Constraint: Scaling Developer Experience to Teams and Agents at SpotifyID sx-18 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.atspotify.com/2026/6/code-with-claude-coding-is-no-longer-the-constraintNiklas Gustavsson, Chief Architect and VP of Engineering at SpotifySpotify engineering; Claude Code and the Honk background agent built on the Claude Agent SDKOrganization-widePublished Jun 3, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuationID tb-09 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48317301toraway, Hacker News commenterself-described: Engineer who recommends the company's AI coding subscriptionsIndividual practitionerPublished May 29, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentListed, no finding position
Codex vs Claude Code: Why I Switched for Daily DevelopmentID ir-28 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewskarangoyal.cc/blog/why-i-moved-from-claude-code-to-codexKaran Goyal, Senior Shopify developerself-described: Solo client work: Shopify apps, Next.js pages, SEO and contentIndividual practitionerPublished May 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How Salesforce Engineering Became Truly AgenticID ld-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.salesforce.com/news/stories/how-engineering-became-agentic/Srinivas Tallapragada, President and Chief Engineering and Customer Success Officer at SalesforceSalesforce global engineering, Claude Code rolled out to every engineerTechnical leadershipPublished May 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentNot counted. Salesforce, the author's employer, is an Anthropic investor and strategic partner.
Comment on: The Eternal SloptemberID tb-08 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=48264917jvidalv, Hacker News commenterself-described: Ten-year-old codebase shared by more than 200 engineers, plus a five-engineer codebaseIndividual practitionerPublished May 25, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
What I Learned Using Claude Code as an Engineering Manager During Focus WeekID ir-27 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsmedium.com/@ahmadshafey/what-i-learned-using-claude-code-as-an-engineering-manager-during-focus-week-e9a4538c953aAhmad El-Shafey, Senior Engineering Manager at Slackself-described: Slack, their engineering team's repo during Focus WeekProfessional teamPublished May 13, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Went back to Autocomplete after Claude Code & Codex! Agentic AI really is a trap!ID sf-23 | Developer Communitieswww.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1tc14n5/went_back_to_autocomplete_after_claude_code_codex/StoriesWithGR, Reddit r/ExperiencedDevs poster with about 20 years in software, including chief technology officer and founder rolesself-described: Solo, a crawler with a custom session algorithm on CrawleeJSIndividual practitionerPublished May 13, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentNot counted. Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked.
Why I Cancelled My Claude Code and ChatGPT Pro Subscriptions (for Side Projects)ID ir-26 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsakoskm.substack.com/p/why-i-cancelled-my-claude-code-andAkos Komuves, Developer with a day job, writing about side projectsself-described: Side projects, including HRS (a TUI time tracker)Individual practitionerPublished May 10, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
How are you handling project conventions across Cursor / Claude Code / Copilot?ID sf-25 | Developer Communitieswww.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1t8237u/how_are_you_handling_project_conventions_across/theov666, Reddit r/ExperiencedDevs posterself-described: A team split across Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot and a CI job on the Anthropic APIIndividual practitionerPublished May 9, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentNot counted. Its author's ties to the vendor have not been checked.
Knak Blog: Claude Code streamlining at KnakID sf-19 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsknak.com/blog/claude-code-streamlining-at-knak/Jack Steele, Director of Engineering, Knakself-described: Knak designers and a developer tiger teamProfessional teamPublished May 7, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026CurrentListed, no finding position
Comment on: An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's confession is belowID dc-17 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47916644sfink, Hacker News commenterself-described: Work use with an employer-owned API key, sandboxed in firejailIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: An AI agent deleted our production database. The agent's confession is belowID dc-18 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918468delegate, Hacker News commenterself-described: Local database work outside production, with a backup taken firstIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Latent Space: Applied Intuition with Peter LudwigID sf-4 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoslatent.space/p/appliedintuition/Peter Ludwig, co-founder and chief technology officer, Applied Intuitionself-described: Applied Intuition, company-wide tool use with an internal adoption leaderboardOrganization-widePublished Apr 27, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Claude Code/Cowork monitoring at scale with Otel & ElasticID sx-03 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.elastic.co/security-labs/blog/claude-code-cowork-monitoring-otel-elasticSpencer Niemi, Elastic InfoSecself-described: Elastic engineering organization; the InfoSec team monitors agent use with OpenTelemetryOrganization-widePublished Apr 25, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: An update on recent Claude Code quality reportsID tb-07 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47900909bmitc, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company with tens of thousands of employeesIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 25, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: I cancelled Claude: Token issues, declining quality, and poor supportID dc-16 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47893458stan_kirdey, Hacker News commenterself-described: Paid subscriber on the US$20 Pro plan, then the US$200 Max planIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 24, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Claude Code Tips I Wish I'd Had From Day OneID sx-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsmarmelab.com/blog/2026/04/24/claude-code-tips-i-wish-id-had-from-day-one.htmlCaroline Schneider, Marmelabself-described: Marmelab, software agency; client projects and its react-admin and Atomic CRM open source frameworksProfessional teamPublished Apr 24, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Is Claude Code going to cost US$100/month? Probably not, it's all very confusingID ir-25 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewssimonwillison.net/2026/Apr/22/claude-code-confusion/Simon Willison, Independent developer and blogger who teaches Claude Codeself-described: Pays for their own Max plan; runs coding agent tutorialsIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Background Coding Agents: Supercharging Downstream Consumer Dataset Migrations (Honk, Part 4)ID ld-12 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.atspotify.com/2026/4/background-coding-agents-dataset-migrations-honk-part-4Devon Edwards Joseph, Senior Engineer at SpotifySpotify data team migrating downstream dataset consumers with Honk and FleetshiftProfessional teamPublished Apr 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Latent Space: Shopify with Mikhail ParakhinID sf-5 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoslatent.space/p/shopify/Mikhail Parakhin, chief technology officer, Shopifyself-described: Shopify, every employee chooses their coding toolOrganization-widePublished Apr 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: ChatGPT Pro now starts at US$100/monthID dc-15 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47707510sassymuffinz, Hacker News commenterself-described: One-week trial on their own codebase; normally VS Code with occasional CopilotIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 9, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Why I Cancelled Claude Max After 13 Months and What I'm Testing with Codex NextID ir-24 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewschandlernguyen.com/blog/2026/04/03/why-i-cancelled-claude-max-after-13-months-and-what-im-testing-with-codex-next/Chandler Nguyen, self-taught builderself-described: Solo, own products (STRATUM, DIALOGUE, course platform, personal site)Individual practitionerPublished Apr 3, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
[MODEL] Claude Code is unusable for complex engineering tasks with the Feb updatesID dc-14 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796Stella Laurenzo (stellaraccident), software engineer (employer unnamed in the issue)self-described: Compiler/GPU projects; the issue's first version says every senior engineer on the author's team reported similar experiencesProfessional teamPublished Apr 2, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
GitHub issue: Claude Code quality regression forced a fleet of sessions back to oneID sf-21 | Developer Communitiesapi.github.com/repos/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796Stella Laurenzo (stellaraccident), engineer running Claude Code fleets on IREE projectsself-described: IREE compiler projects, 5 to 10 or more concurrent sessionsIndividual practitionerPublished Apr 2, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How we made Trail of Bits AI-native (so far)ID ld-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.trailofbits.com/2026/03/31/how-we-made-trail-of-bits-ai-native-so-far/Dan Guido, CEO at Trail of BitsSecurity consultancy; every employee on Claude Code with shared configs and sandboxesTechnical leadershipPublished Mar 31, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Go hard on agents, not on your filesystemID dc-13 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47550799gurachek, Hacker News commenterself-described: Solo, personal blog on ApacheIndividual practitionerPublished Mar 28, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
What we're learning from engineers getting the most from Claude CodeID ir-23 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsideas.fin.ai/p/what-were-learning-from-engineersAndrew Walker, Engineering Director at Fin.ai (Intercom)self-described: Intercom engineering organizationTechnical leadershipPublished Mar 25, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
[BUG] Claude Max plan session limits exhausted abnormally fast since March 23, 2026 (CLI usage)ID sx-21 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/38335karenrebecag, GitHub userself-described: Max plan through the Claude Code CLI, same workload each dayIndividual practitionerPublished Mar 24, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How we use Claude Code today at IntercomID ir-22 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsideas.fin.ai/p/how-we-use-claude-code-today-at-intercomBrian Scanlan, engineer at Intercomself-described: Intercom, company-wide Claude Code platform (engineering, data, support, product)Organization-widePublished Mar 19, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Ask HN: How is AI-assisted coding going for you professionally?ID dc-12 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47391191alexmuro, Runs a small analytics and web products lab; manages 5 developersself-described: Small lab building a React/Node analytics and GIS platform for clientsVery small teamPublished Mar 15, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Feature Request: Persistent Memory Across Context Compactions (59 compactions, built our own)ID sx-25 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/34556Haustorium12, GitHub userself-described: 12 to 18 hours a day across two machines and six active projectsIndividual practitionerPublished Mar 15, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Claude Code and COBOL modernization: What’s the reality?ID ld-06 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.thoughtworks.com/insights/articles/claude-code-cobol-modernization-realityShodhan Sheth, Enterprise Modernization, Platforms & Cloud Lead at ThoughtworksThoughtworks UK legacy modernization practice, 18 months of AI-assisted mainframe work, with Alessio FerriTechnical leadershipPublished Mar 2, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Ask HN: What's it like working in big tech recently with all the AI tools?ID tb-06 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160979cebert, Hacker News commenterself-described: US$20 billion technology company with an enterprise subscription; TypeScript teamIndividual practitionerPublished Feb 26, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Hugging Face SkillsID tb-05 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47143315sothatsit, Hacker News commenterself-described: Engineering team that wrote CLIs and skills for its internal systemsIndividual practitionerPublished Feb 24, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: How I use Claude Code: Separation of planning and executionID tb-04 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=47108547raw_anon_1111, Hacker News commenterself-described: US consulting company on an enterprise planIndividual practitionerPublished Feb 22, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How We Trained Our Engineering Team To Actually Use Claude Code (not just chat with it)ID ir-32 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewscollabnix.com/how-we-trained-our-engineering-team-to-actually-use-claude-code-not-just-chat-with-it/Kat Korson, Director at Red Eagle Techself-described: Red Eagle Tech engineering team building bespoke software and an e-commerce SaaS platformProfessional teamPublished Feb 21, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Stripe Dot Dev: Minions, Stripe's one-shot end-to-end coding agents, part 2ID sf-15 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsstripe.dev/blog/minions-stripes-one-shot-end-to-end-coding-agents-part-2Alistair Gray, engineer, Stripeself-described: Stripe engineeringProfessional teamPublished Feb 19, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
[BUG] [URGENT!!!] Claude Code is hanging / freezing / stuck on heaps of prompts for 5-20minutes or more.ID sx-24 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/26224nullbio, GitHub userself-described: Daily Claude Code use since the Opus 4.6 releaseIndividual practitionerPublished Feb 17, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Teaching Claude the Old Tricks: Lessons from Migrating Legacy Code to an AI-Assisted WorkflowID sx-06 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.charlesherring.com/blog/claude-with-old-codeCharles Herring, co-founder and chairman of WitFooself-described: WitFoo, cybersecurity platform; a decade of production code moving to a rebuilt productTechnical leadershipPublished Feb 10, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Claude Code: Production ready code in a two-week sprintID ld-03 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsthoughtbot.com/blog/claude-code-skills-production-ready-code-in-a-two-week-sprintChad Pytel, Developer and CEO at thoughtbotthoughtbot consultancy team building a client Rails appTechnical leadershipPublished Feb 9, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
What our web team learned using Claude Code for a monthID ir-31 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsexpo.dev/blog/what-our-web-team-learned-using-claude-code-for-a-monthJuwan Wheatley, Expo engineerself-described: Expo web team and company-wide Claude Code usersOrganization-widePublished Feb 6, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
My AI Adoption JourneyID sx-16 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsmitchellh.com/writing/my-ai-adoption-journeyMitchell Hashimoto, Ghosttyself-described: Ghostty terminal and his own projectsIndividual practitionerPublished Feb 5, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Auto-compact not triggering on Claude.ai despite being marked as fixedID dc-11 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46737383btown, Hacker News commenterself-described: Uses Claude Code and encourages their team to use itIndividual practitionerPublished Jan 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Cloud Coding Agents at HubSpotID ld-04 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsproduct.hubspot.com/blog/cloud-coding-agents-at-hubspotStephan Lensky, senior engineer on the AI Developer Experience team at HubSpotHubSpot engineering, self-hosted cloud agent platform (Crucible) on KubernetesProfessional teamPublished Jan 23, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Latent Space: Brex's AI Hail Mary, with James ReggioID sf-9 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoslatent.space/p/brex/James Reggio, chief technology officer, Brexself-described: Brex, a few seats of several tools chosen by employeesOrganization-widePublished Jan 17, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Don't fall into the anti-AI hypeID sx-12 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsantirez.com/news/158antirez, Redis developerself-described: Redis and his own C librariesIndividual practitionerPublished Jan 11, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
[Bug] Excessive token usage in Claude Code 2.1.1 - 4x+ faster rate consumption than previous versionsID sx-26 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/16856h3d0, GitHub userself-described: Max plan; the same projects and routine for monthsIndividual practitionerPublished Jan 8, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Claude Code and What Comes NextID sx-14 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.oneusefulthing.org/p/claude-code-and-what-comes-nextEthan Mollick, One Useful Thingself-described: Nontechnical user building and launching a small web businessIndividual practitionerPublished Jan 7, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
AI Native Dev: What AI Engineering Looks Like at Meta, Coinbase, ServiceTitan and ThoughtWorksID sf-10 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=OnM7sWLnAfwSepehr Khosravi, machine learning platform engineer, Coinbaseself-described: Coinbase, which tracks AI use per developerIndividual practitionerPublished Jan 6, 2026Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Scaling LLMs to Larger CodebasesID tb-03 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46356633godzillafarts, Hacker News commenterself-described: Engineering team that adapted HumanLayer's context-engineering prompts for its own stackIndividual practitionerPublished Dec 22, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Salesforce Engineering: How AI-enabled tooling boosted code output 30%ID sf-16 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.salesforce.com/how-ai-enabled-tooling-boosted-code-output-30-while-keeping-quality-and-deployment-safety-intact/Darryn Dieken, Chief Availability Officer, Salesforceself-described: Salesforce engineeringOrganization-widePublished Dec 16, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Ask HN: How can I get better at using AI for programming?ID dc-10 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46259998thyb23, Hacker News commenterself-described: Max plan with Opus 4.5, after trying Gemini CLI, Cursor, Codex CLI, and AntigravityIndividual practitionerPublished Dec 14, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: The 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective AgentsID dc-09 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46250689tobyhede, Hacker News commenterself-described: Solo side project, Rust game with BevyIndividual practitionerPublished Dec 13, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Background Coding Agents: Predictable Results Through Strong Feedback Loops (Honk, Part 3)ID ld-11 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.atspotify.com/2025/12/feedback-loops-background-coding-agents-part-3Max Charas and Marc Bruggmann, Senior Staff and Principal Engineers at SpotifySpotify Fleet Management, background agent (Honk) running Claude Code across thousands of componentsTechnical leadershipPublished Dec 9, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: Has the cost of building software dropped 90%?ID dc-08 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46198981loandbehold, Remote developerself-described: Remote developer on a team that uses GitHub CopilotIndividual practitionerPublished Dec 8, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
No Vibes Allowed: Solving Hard Problems in Complex Codebases - Dex Horthy, HumanLayerID tc-02 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=rmvDxxNubIgDex Horthy, Founder of HumanLayerself-described: HumanLayer, three-person engineering teamVery small teamPublished Dec 2, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
What I learned building an opinionated and minimal coding agentID ir-21 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsmariozechner.at/posts/2025-11-30-pi-coding-agent/Mario Zechner, Independent developer, coach and speakerself-described: Solo; built their own open source coding agent (pi) after using Claude CodeIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 30, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Comment on: Anti-patterns while working with LLMsID tb-02 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=46083268hamasho, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team sharing several AWS development instancesIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 28, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Background Coding Agents: Context Engineering (Honk, Part 2)ID ir-20 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsengineering.atspotify.com/2025/11/context-engineering-background-coding-agents-part-2Max Charas and Marc Bruggmann, Senior Staff and Principal Engineers at Spotifyself-described: Spotify, fleet-wide background coding agent for migrationsOrganization-widePublished Nov 24, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
AI Engineer: Hacking Subagents Into Codex CLIID sf-7 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=5eJqXtevlXgBrian John, principal full-stack engineer, AI enablement for R&D, BetterUpself-described: BetterUp R&D AI enablementIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 24, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
Comment on: Microsoft AI CEO pushes back against critics after recent Windows AI backlashID tb-01 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=45988618ewoodrich, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team whose manager asked for one AI coding subscription for everyoneIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 20, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
X post by @IceSolstID sx-27 | Developer Communitiesx.com/IceSolst/status/1989685075621847148solst/ICE (@IceSolst), security engineerself-described: Overnight Claude Code loop on a detailed task list, paid with employer tokensIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 15, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Rolling out Claude Code at AirtaskerID ir-19 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsmedium.com/airtribe/rolling-out-claude-code-at-airtasker-72990b901998Asher Moore, engineering leader at Airtaskerself-described: Airtasker, engineering-wide rollout via AWS BedrockOrganization-widePublished Nov 10, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
How I Use Every Claude Code FeatureID ir-18 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.sshh.io/p/how-i-use-every-claude-code-featureShrivu Shankar, leads AI developer tooling at Abnormal AIself-described: Abnormal AI engineering, shared monorepoProfessional teamPublished Nov 2, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Claude Code Can Debug Low-level CryptographyID sx-11 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswords.filippo.io/claude-debugging/Filippo Valsorda, open source maintainerself-described: Go standard library cryptography; a new ML-DSA implementationIndividual practitionerPublished Nov 1, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Living dangerously with ClaudeID ir-17 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewssimonwillison.net/2025/Oct/22/living-dangerously-with-claude/Simon Willison, Independent developer and bloggerself-described: Solo, side projects and research experimentsIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 22, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
[BUG] ## CRITICAL: Claude Code executed rm -rf deleting entire home directoryID dc-07 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/10077Mike Wolak, developerself-described: Own firmware project on Ubuntu under WSL2Individual practitionerPublished Oct 21, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Comment on: Claude Code on the webID dc-06 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=45650306kelvinjps10, Hacker News commenterself-described: Terminal work after trying Codex; vim prompt editing and shell toolsIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 20, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Just Talk To It - the no-bs Way of Agentic EngineeringID ir-16 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewssteipete.me/posts/just-talk-to-itPeter Steinberger, Independent developerself-described: Solo, ~300k LOC TypeScript React app plus extension and CLIIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 14, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
[Meta] Unexpected change in Claude usage limits as of 2025-09-29. (30+ reports)ID sx-22 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/9094emcd, GitHub userself-described: Claude Pro subscriber using Claude Code dailyIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 7, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
How I'm using coding agents in September, 2025ID ir-15 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.fsck.com/2025/10/05/how-im-using-coding-agents-in-september-2025/Jesse Vincent, Independent developerself-described: Solo, 3-4 parallel projects on a single codebaseIndividual practitionerPublished Oct 5, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
90%ID sx-07 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewslucumr.pocoo.org/2025/9/29/90-percent/Armin Ronacher, founder of a new companyself-described: New company; a 40,000-line Go email service with generated Python and TypeScript SDKsVery small teamPublished Sep 29, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Claude Code has changed how we do engineeringID ir-14 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.promptlayer.com/claude-code-has-changed-how-we-do-engineering/Jonathan Pedoeem, Technical founder of PromptLayerself-described: PromptLayer, startup engineering teamVery small teamPublished Sep 3, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
First attempt will be 95% garbage: A staff engineer's 6-week journey with Claude CodeID ir-13 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.sanity.io/engineering/first-attempt-will-be-95-garbageVincent Quigley, then Staff Engineer at Sanityself-described: Sanity, engineering team (internal workshop write-up)Professional teamPublished Sep 2, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: Survey: a third of senior developers say over half their code is AI-generatedID dc-05 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=45091902stavros, Hacker News commenterself-described: Own development work on the Max plan; has it write small functions that stavros then composesIndividual practitionerPublished Sep 1, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Practical Lessons Learned using Claude Code to automate IntegrationsID ld-09 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewspetercto.substack.com/p/practical-lessons-learned-using-claudePeter Silberman, Chief Technology Officer at FixifyFixify, IT operations company with its own integration SDKTechnical leadershipPublished Aug 20, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Testing AI coding agents (2025): Cursor vs. Claude, OpenAI, and GeminiID sx-04 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsrender.com/blog/ai-coding-agents-benchmarkMitch Alderson, Renderself-described: Render engineering; timed tests on its own production codebases and a new Next.js appProfessional teamPublished Aug 12, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Getting Good Results from Claude CodeID sx-09 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.dzombak.com/blog/2025/08/getting-good-results-from-claude-code/Chris Dzombak, software engineerself-described: Personal projects, about 12 programsIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 8, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
My One-Month Journey with Claude CodeID ir-12 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsdev.to/onlineeric/my-one-month-journey-with-claude-code-199hEric Cheng, Software engineerself-described: Large refactoring project involving thousands of filesIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 6, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Adopting Claude Code: Riding the Software Economics SingularityID ld-08 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewspreset.io/blog/adopting-claude-code-riding-the-software-economics-singularity/Maxime Beauchemin, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of PresetPreset, the company behind Apache Superset; large open source repositoryTechnical leadershipPublished Aug 4, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: 6 weeks of Claude CodeID dc-04 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=44770831fdsf111, Hacker News commenterself-described: Developer at a company, Python/JavaScript workIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 2, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Claude Code Memory Leak - Process Grows to 120+ GB RAM and Gets OOM KilledID sx-23 | Developer Communitiesgithub.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/4953chatgpt-copypasta, GitHub userself-described: Ubuntu 24.04 machine with 128 GB of RAM, long coding sessionsIndividual practitionerPublished Aug 1, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
6 Weeks of Claude CodeID ir-11 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsblog.puzzmo.com/posts/2025/07/30/six-weeks-of-claude-code/Orta Therox, engineer at Puzzmoself-described: Puzzmo, small engineering team, monoreposVery small teamPublished Jul 30, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
How I got Claude to write code I could actually shipID ir-10 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsgraphite.com/blog/how-i-got-claude-to-write-better-codeKush Gupta, engineer at Graphiteself-described: Graphite engineering team, monorepoProfessional teamPublished Jul 24, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: My experience with Claude Code after two weeks of adventuresID dc-03 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598847sankalp (dejavucoder), Hacker News commenterself-described: Solo, large open source Ruby + TypeScript codebaseIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 17, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
My Experience With Claude Code After 2 Weeks of AdventuresID ir-09 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewssankalp.bearblog.dev/my-claude-code-experience-after-2-weeks-of-usage/sankalp (dejavucoder), Independent developer and AI engineering consultantself-described: Gumroad bounties and consulting; medium Python and large Ruby/TypeScript codebasesIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 17, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Lenny's Podcast: Dan Shipper of EveryID sf-11 | Podcasts, Talks & Videoswww.youtube.com/watch?v=crMrVozp_h8Dan Shipper, co-founder and CEO, Everyself-described: Every, company-wideOrganization-widePublished Jul 17, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How I Use Claude Code to Ship Like a Team of FiveID ir-08 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsevery.to/source-code/how-i-use-claude-code-to-ship-like-a-team-of-fiveKieran Klaassen, General manager of Cora at Everyself-described: Building Cora, an AI email assistant, as its hands-on developerIndividual practitionerPublished Jul 16, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
How I use Claude Code (+ my best tips)ID sx-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.builder.io/blog/claude-codeSteve Sewell, Builder.ioself-described: Builder.io, large React codebase; a Cursor power user for a year before the switchProfessional teamPublished Jul 11, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
I Shipped a macOS App Built Entirely by Claude CodeID ir-07 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.indragie.com/blog/i-shipped-a-macos-app-built-entirely-by-claude-codeIndragie Karunaratne, Engineer with a day job, building a side projectself-described: Solo side project, native macOS app (Context)Individual practitionerPublished Jul 1, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
The Pragmatic Engineer: Software engineering with LLMs in 2025ID sf-17 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsnewsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/software-engineering-with-llms-in-2025Lawrence Jones, software engineer, incident.ioself-described: incident.io engineering teamProfessional teamPublished Jul 1, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Current
How we're shipping faster with Claude Code and Git WorktreesID ir-06 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsincident.io/blog/shipping-faster-with-claude-code-and-git-worktreesRory Bain, Product Engineer at incident.ioself-described: incident.io, product engineering teamProfessional teamPublished Jun 27, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Agentic Coding RecommendationsID ir-05 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewslucumr.pocoo.org/2025/6/12/agentic-coding/Armin Ronacher, Independent developerself-described: Solo, own apps and open source library workIndividual practitionerPublished Jun 12, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
How Two Engineers Ship Like a Team of 15 With AI AgentsID tc-01 | Podcasts, Talks & Videosevery.to/podcast/how-two-engineers-ship-like-a-team-of-15-with-ai-agentsKieran Klaassen and Nityesh Agarwal, Cora team at Everyself-described: Every, two-person Cora engineering teamVery small teamPublished Jun 11, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Field Notes From Shipping Real Code With ClaudeID sx-10 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsdiwank.space/field-notes-from-shipping-real-code-with-claudeDiwank Singh, Julepself-described: Julep, AI workflow orchestration; a backend with years of accumulated decisionsVery small teamPublished Jun 7, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: Cursor 1.0ID dc-02 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=44190900lmeyerov, Hacker News commenterself-described: Solo; wrote an internal guide to their vibe-coding processIndividual practitionerPublished Jun 5, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Claude Code is My ComputerID ir-04 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewssteipete.me/posts/2025/claude-code-is-my-computerPeter Steinberger, Independent developerself-described: Solo, own Mac and personal projectsIndividual practitionerPublished Jun 3, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Comment on: Ask HN: Cursor or Windsurf?ID dc-01 | Developer Communitiesnews.ycombinator.com/item?id=43960189erenst, Hacker News commenterself-described: Solo, game development experiments; backend web development at workIndividual practitionerPublished May 12, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Basic Claude CodeID ir-03 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsharper.blog/2025/05/08/basic-claude-code/Harper Reed, CEO of 2389 Researchself-described: Own projects; notes their team follows a similar processIndividual practitionerPublished May 8, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Nobody Codes Here AnymoreID ir-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewsghiculescu.substack.com/p/nobody-codes-here-anymoreAlex Ghiculescu, co-founder of Tandaself-described: Tanda, about 40 developers, 12-year-old Ruby on Rails SaaS codebaseTechnical leadershipPublished Apr 29, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Still applicable
Claude Code saved us 97% of the work on the first try. Then it failed utterly.ID ir-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviewswww.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/generative-ai/claude-code-codeconcise-experimentAlessio Ferri, Thoughtworksself-described: Thoughtworks team building the CodeConcise legacy-modernization toolProfessional teamPublished Mar 10, 2025Assessment reviewed Nov 1, 2026Needs a recheck
Code ReviewID pd-22 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/code-reviewAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 25, 2026CurrentVerification only
OverviewID pd-01 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/overviewAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
QuickstartID pd-02 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/quickstartAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Common workflowsID pd-03 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/common-workflowsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
How Claude remembers your projectID pd-04 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/memoryAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Settings files and precedenceID pd-05 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/settingsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Configure permissionsID pd-06 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/permissionsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
AuthenticationID pd-07 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/iamAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
SecurityID pd-08 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/securityAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Data usageID pd-09 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/data-usageAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Manage costs effectivelyID pd-10 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/costsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Track team usage with analyticsID pd-11 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/analyticsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
MonitoringID pd-12 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/monitoring-usageAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Hooks referenceID pd-13 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/hooksAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Create custom subagentsID pd-14 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/sub-agentsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Connect Claude Code to tools via MCPID pd-15 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/mcpAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Use Claude Code in VS CodeID pd-16 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/vs-codeAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
JetBrains IDEsID pd-17 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/jetbrainsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Claude Code GitHub ActionsID pd-18 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/github-actionsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Platforms and integrationsID pd-19 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/platformsAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Configure the sandboxed Bash toolID pd-20 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/sandboxingAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only
Model configurationID pd-21 | Product Documentationcode.claude.com/docs/en/model-configAnthropicOfficialNot counted (documentation)No date statedDocumentation checked Oct 12, 2026CurrentVerification only