Reviewing your own code is hard. Not because you lack the skill, but because you lack the distance. You wrote the code; you know what it is supposed to do; and that knowledge of intent inoculates you against noticing what the code actually does in its edge cases, its error paths, and its quiet inconsistencies. I recently asked Claude Code to perform a comprehensive code review of Konjugieren, my German verb-conjugation app, and the results were instructive: not for the showstopping defects it found (there were none), but for the characteristic distribution of what it did find. Sixteen issues across three severity tiers. I fixed eleven, declined two with explanation, and learned something about the complementary strengths of human judgment and AI exhaustiveness.

Continue reading →

A professional translator produces roughly 2,000 to 3,000 words per day. At that rate, localizing 65,000 words of app content from English to German would take a single translator three to four weeks. Seven AI agents, running in parallel with a fan-out/fan-in architecture, completed the same work in thirty-three minutes. The effective rate was 216 times faster than a human translator. This post describes how that happened, what went wrong, and what the speedup actually means.

Continue reading →

The standard narrative about AI-assisted software development is seductively unidirectional: describe what you want, the AI writes the code, and you ship faster. This narrative is not wrong. It is merely incomplete. Over six weeks of building an iOS app with Claude Code, I discovered that the highest-impact practice was not writing better prompts. It was maintaining the bidirectional feedback loop: correcting the AI’s persistent misconceptions and curating the shared documentation that governs every future session.

Continue reading →