Productivity

TL;DR I run 3-5 Claude Code sessions in parallel at staggered cadences. They coordinate through a shared #mat-claude-sessions Mattermost channel plus a small coordination board file. Each session announces what it’s about to touch, claims it, and announces when it’s done. Conflicts are rare; throughput is dramatically higher than running one session at a time and waiting. Why parallel A single Claude Code session running a long task — refactor across a few repos, work through a debugging session, draft a blog post — is mostly me waiting. The model is fast but tasks are bounded by my decisions, my reviews, and my edits. If I’m waiting on Session A to finish a build, Session B can be drafting something unrelated. Session C can be running a slow eval. The bottleneck stops being the model and becomes my own attention rotation. ...

TL;DR On March 21, I shipped meaningful work across five repositories in a single day: a 13,674-line stock trading platform from scratch, a Harbor container registry replacing AWS ECR across 13 CI workflows, API key authentication and an HA proxy for digital signage, inventory sell signals for a trading card tracker, and an OpenClaw cost optimization that killed an idle token burn. Every commit was co-authored with Claude. This post breaks down the mechanics of how that actually works – the prompting patterns, the failure modes, the things I would not let the AI do, and the real throughput multiplier. ...

TL;DR GitHub Copilot is more capable than most people give it credit for. I used it heavily – not just for autocomplete, but for multi-file edits, chat-driven debugging, and workspace-aware refactoring. After a year of intensive Copilot usage and a month with Claude Code Max ($100/month for the Max plan with Opus), I moved my primary workflow to Claude Code for infrastructure and backend work. The reason is not that Copilot cannot do these things – it is that Claude Code is faster and I can hand it a task and let it run without babysitting. Copilot still wins for inline code completion in the editor. Claude Code wins when I want to describe a goal and walk away while it executes. ...

TL;DR AI coding tools are now default behavior for most developers, not an experiment. If you manage a team and you haven’t formalized this, you have ungoverned spend, security exposure, and inconsistent behavior happening right now. The fix isn’t to take the tools away — it’s to pick one, pay for it centrally, encode your policies into the AI itself using instruction files and skills, and govern the control folder rather than individual usage. Here’s the framework I’d implement. ...

TL;DR A 109-day project plan. One day of actual work. Eight hours of active pipeline time. The key was treating planning and implementation as two separate AI-driven phases: spend an evening getting the plan right by routing it through multiple models, then let Claude Sonnet 4.6 implement it autonomously overnight via GitHub Copilot’s cloud agent while you sleep. This is the full playbook — planning phase included. The Project This came out of building dnd-multi, a full-stack AI Dungeon Master platform: FastAPI backend, Next.js 15 frontend, a Discord bot, LiveKit voice, and AWS Bedrock integration. Seven feature phases, a plan projected to take until June 19. ...

TL;DR A $20/month GitHub Copilot subscription gives you Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o, and Gemini inside VS Code. Out of the box it’s useful. With a proper instruction setup — a copilot-instructions.md file, path-scoped rules, and skill documents — it becomes something you actually rely on. Most of the posts on this blog were built with this toolchain, mostly in the context of my k3s cluster, but the patterns apply anywhere. This is how I have it set up. ...