I kept adding checks to make Claude Code reliable. Taking them off is what got the build moving
I'm not a programmer. I run a small business with five software projects on one server, and Claude Code builds them. I work mostly at a desktop and by phone one or two days a week. All I wanted was one central setup, so sessions would stop behaving differently and stop fighting what had already been decided. For weeks that didn't happen. What went wrong Every failure got a new check or a new…
The author explains they are not a programmer, but manage five software projects on a single server. They use Claude Code, a chatbot, to build these projects and prefer a central setup to avoid inconsistent sessions and decisions. For weeks, the builds failed, which led to the addition of numerous checks and rules. By the end, there were about 460 commits, and the hooks grew from 28 to 46.
The author then states they changed their approach. Instead of asking how to prevent Claude Code from failing, they asked what users who successfully complete tasks actually do. They reviewed 20 sources, including user reports and forum discussions. Based on this research, they froze new rules and checks, reduced the hooks to five hard stops, and added a few specific hooks. They also made sure to refuse secret keys at commit and merge.
After testing their new approach, the author found that all seven parts of the build process now pass the checks. However, an independent review found that only one part fully meets their requirements, while the others are only partially resolved. This indicates the issue is not yet fully resolved.
The author also notes that their changes did not completely fix the problem. Written instructions still have limitations, and the chatbot can still misinterpret queries, leading to confusion. Additionally, some warnings that caught mistakes were removed in the process.
The author concludes by stating they expect to see more successful completions in new chats, fewer repeat questions, and no mistakes passing through the hard stops. They plan to update this post with the results, including any further failures. The author encourages interested readers to share their experiences and provide feedback.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
