Claude Code software development best practices

Claude Code can edit a repository and run its tools. The harder question is what evidence should let that edit merge. A confident final message does not show that the caller still works or that a failed request preserves the user's data.

I treat Claude Code as one participant in the agent software development lifecycle. The repository supplies rules, the task supplies a result, and the checks supply evidence.

Repository rules#

Put durable project facts in CLAUDE.md: the commands the project uses, the boundaries an edit must respect, and the places where behavior is easy to misunderstand. Keep task-specific instructions with the task.

Anthropic recommends short repository instructions, specific prompts, and a check Claude can run. Its guidance also distinguishes written instructions from rules enforced by tools.¹

For a web application, useful facts include the source of design tokens, the supported test command, and where access checks belong. Copying a full architecture document into every session can hide those facts. Link to the relevant document and have the agent read it when the task needs it.

A bounded task#

Describe an outcome the reviewer can observe. For a form fix, name the invalid input, the expected message, and what happens to the entered values. For a refactor, name the behavior that must remain unchanged.

Ask the agent to inspect the implementation and its callers before editing. Give each concurrent task a separate owner and a clear interface. A second session does not make edits to a shared file independent.

Keep the patch small enough that someone can explain its behavior. If a change grows, update the task and review scope before treating it as complete.

Tools and hooks#

Use permission settings to limit which actions a session can perform. A prompt that asks an agent to avoid a forbidden action does not remove the tool that performs it.

Claude Code hooks can run commands at defined points in a session. They can check an action or run a required local step. Hook behavior depends on the event and its configuration, so test the failure case as well as the success case.²

Keep hooks focused. A command that runs after every edit should have a reason to run that often. Repeated full builds can turn a fast edit into an expensive loop. Use the checks the repository already requires and keep their scope tied to the change.

Verification and review#

For a defect, first show a check that detects the old failure. Then make the smallest change that passes it. Check the nearby failure paths that the edit can affect.

Have a separate review read the diff against the requirements. Ask for a concrete failure scenario and a way to reproduce it. The agent that wrote the patch can explain intent, but intent is not test evidence.

Before merging, verify that the results belong to the current commit and that the branch can merge. After deployment, check the changed behavior in the running environment.

A task brief#

Outcome: an invalid email stays on the subscription page.
Expected behavior: show a useful error and preserve entered text.
Scope: the form and the request it sends.
Before editing: read the form, API validation, and nearby tests.
Verification: reproduce the failure, then check invalid input and a failed request.
Delivery: report the changed behavior, checked commit, and remaining limits.

Use the coding agent practice guide for the broader review method. The context research explains how the information at the start of a task shapes the work that follows.

Footnotes#

1. Anthropic. Best practices for Claude Code. ↩

2. Anthropic. Automate actions with hooks. ↩

@online{anderson2026claudecodesoftware,
  author  = {Anderson, Mac},
  title   = {Claude Code software development best practices},
  year    = {2026},
  date    = {2026-10-28},
  url     = {https://macanderson.com/research/claude-code-software-development-best-practices}
}