You've learned not to trust the first answer.
So you read it carefully. You spot two problems. You fix them yourself, ship it, and move on. That's a reasonable way to work, and it's what separates an engineer who uses these tools well from one who copies and pastes.
But there's a step you skipped. You never asked Claude to find the problems, and asking produces a different kind of output than reviewing does.
Here's a specific case. You ask for an incremental load. You get something clean: a watermark column, a filter on records newer than the last run, an upsert into the target.
You review it. You notice it assumes source records arrive in order, which yours don't, so you add a buffer window. You notice it doesn't handle the first run when the watermark is null, so you add a default. Two fixes, maybe fifteen minutes, and now it's correct.
