Iterative Development with Claude Code
How to build features incrementally — shipping working pieces instead of waiting for one large rewrite to be done.
The instinct when working with Claude Code is to describe the full feature and have it built all at once. This works for small features. For anything substantial, it produces code that's harder to review, harder to debug, and more likely to need significant revision.
Iterative development — build a small working piece, verify it, then extend — works better.
Start with the skeleton
First pass: get the structure right without filling in all the logic. Types, function signatures, the basic flow. Hardcode values where the real logic will go. This gives you something to look at, run, and think about before committing to implementation details.
Ask Claude for the skeleton explicitly: "Build the structure of this feature with placeholder implementations. I want to review the approach before we fill in the real logic."
One concern at a time
A feature has multiple concerns: the data layer, the business logic, the API surface, the error handling, the tests. Trying to get all of these right simultaneously is where sessions get stuck and code gets messy.
Pick one concern per round. "Now let's implement the database queries." Once those are solid: "Now let's implement the business logic layer using those queries." This keeps each piece reviewable and keeps you in control of the overall direction.
Commit working states frequently
If the feature is partially implemented but the tests pass for what's done: commit it. Working increments in git are better than a big unfinished branch. It's also psychologically useful — progress is visible, and you have a checkpoint to revert to if the next piece goes wrong.
When to break the rule
For small, well-defined tasks — write this utility function, add this validation, update this endpoint — iterative isn't necessary. Ask for the whole thing and review it once.
The overhead of iterating makes sense for features touching multiple files or requiring significant design decisions. For a 20-line change, just ship it.
The review advantage
Small increments are easier to review. "Here are the database queries for the new feature" is a 50-line review. "Here is the entire new feature" is a 400-line review. The smaller the review, the more likely you are to catch the issues that matter.