I feel like that's like having a lead in producing better buggy whips.
I run Claude Code in the background near constantly for a variety of projects, with --dangerously-skip-permissions, and review progress periodically. Tabbing is only relevant when it's totally failing to make progress and I have to manually intervene, and that to me is a failure scenario that is happening less and less often.
What are you building with this workflow? Is it an application live in production with users? It is such a foreign way of working to me.
A compiler (hobby project). A web application server (tooling for my consultancy). An agentic framework to part-automate end-to-end development of a large web app (customer project). An analytics platform to analyze infrastructure maturity (customer project).
Usually I'll have several Claude Code sessions running in parallel on different projects, and when one of them stops I will review the code for that project and start it again - either moving forwards or re-doing things that have issues.
We build mostly everything with this workflow, and we indeed have a lot of paid applications in production with users. Most what we do is SaaS. We do have rigid human code reviews though.
This is just a completely different use of LLMs and has little to do with working at a real business with a live site and users. Cursor is great when you want to gain understanding of an issue quickly, or resolve something clear and specific quickly.
I'm not against YOLO vibe coding, but being against tab completion is just insane to me. At the end of the day, LLMs help you achieve goals quicker. You still need to know what goal you want to achieve, and tab completion basically let's me complete a focused goal nearly as soon as I determine what my goal is.
Some of these projects are at a "real business with a live site and users". Two of the current ones are.
And it's not remotely "YOLO vibe coding". All the code gets reviewed, and tested thoroughly, and they are worked to specs, and gated by test suites.
What I don't do is babysit the LLM until it's code passes both the test suite and automated review stages, because it's a waste of time.
Others of these projects are research tasks. While I wrote this comment, Claude unilaterally fixed a number of bugs in a compiler.
To be clear, Claude probably also introduced the bugs?
I tried to use an appropriate emoji to express the joking nature of this comment, but HN silently filtered it out, so pretend you see a grinning face.
No, Claude did not introduce the bugs. I caused the bugs, years ago, and didn't have time to pursue the project for a long time. Claude fixed them by being handed unfinished, broken code and a test suite and told to make the tests pass.
Ah, that's great. I've also found LLM agents extremely helpful for reviving old projects.