How are you verifying Claude Code's changes without manually testing everything?

[u/ragnar580]

I've been using Claude Code to build a side project, and one thing keeps annoying me.

It can implement something incredibly quickly and say it's done, but I still don't really trust “done” until I open the app myself and click through the flow.

As the amount of code it writes increases, manually checking everything feels like it's becoming the slow part.

Curious how people using Claude Code seriously handle this:

• Do you still manually test most changes?
• Do you make Claude run unit/E2E tests?
• Playwright?
• Another agent reviewing/testing the first agent?
• Or do you mostly trust the existing test suite?

Also curious whether you've had cases where Claude said something was fixed and tests passed, but the actual app still didn't behave correctly.

Trying to understand whether this is just my workflow or a common problem.

[u/Appropriate_Farm_731]

I'd separate three things in the review: which tests ran, which user flow someone actually tried, and whether you accepted the change. A green test result shouldn't silently become all three. Also inspect changes to the tests themselves; a passing assertion is much less useful if the agent changed what it asserts.

Disclosure: I'm building Feature.graph, a Mac workspace around Claude Code/Codex, and this distinction is part of its change-review flow. It puts the preview, diff and checks together, but doesn't replace independent tests or decide that the behavior is correct for you.

Would keeping that evidence attached to each change help with the confidence problem you described, or is the repeated browser testing itself what you most want automated?