claude-code-ultimate-guide/guide/workflows/iterative-refinement.md

Iterative Refinement

Confidence: Tier 2 — Validated pattern observed across many Claude Code users.

Prompt, observe, reprompt until satisfied. The core loop of effective AI-assisted development.

---

Table of Contents

1. TL;DR
2. The Loop
3. Feedback Patterns
4. Autonomous Loops
5. Integration with Claude Code
6. Anti-Patterns
7. See Also

---

TL;DR

1. Initial prompt with clear goal
2. Claude produces output
3. Evaluate against criteria
4. Specific feedback: "Change X because Y"
5. Repeat until done

Key insight: Specific feedback > vague feedback

---

The Loop

Step 1: Initial Prompt

Start with clear intent and constraints:

Create a React component for a user profile card.
- Show avatar, name, bio
- Include edit button
- Use Tailwind CSS
- Mobile-responsive

Step 2: Evaluate Output

Claude produces code. Evaluate:

• Does it meet requirements?
• What's missing?
• What's wrong?
• What could be better?

Step 3: Specific Feedback

Provide targeted corrections:

Good start. Changes needed:
1. Avatar should be circular, not square
2. Edit button should only show for own profile (add isOwner prop)
3. Bio should truncate after 3 lines with "Show more"

Step 4: Repeat

Continue until satisfied:

Better. One more thing:
- Add loading skeleton state for when data is fetching

---

Feedback Patterns

Effective Feedback

Pattern	Example
Specific location	"Line 23: change === to =="
Clear action	"Add error boundary around the form"
Reason given	"Remove the console.log because it leaks user data"
Priority marked	"Critical: fix the SQL injection. Nice-to-have: add pagination."

Ineffective Feedback

Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Better Alternative
"Make it better"	No direction	"Improve readability by extracting the validation logic"
"This is wrong"	No specifics	"The date format should be ISO 8601, not Unix timestamp"
"I don't like it"	Subjective	"Use functional components instead of class components"
"Fix the bugs"	Too vague	"Fix: 1) null check on line 12, 2) off-by-one in loop"

---

Autonomous Loops

Claude can self-iterate with clear completion criteria.

The Ralph Wiggum Pattern

Named after the self-improvement loop pattern:

Keep improving the code quality until:
1. All tests pass
2. No TypeScript errors
3. ESLint shows zero warnings

After each iteration, run the checks and fix any issues.
Stop when all criteria are met.

Completion Criteria Examples

Iterate until:
- Response time < 100ms for 95th percentile
- Test coverage > 80%
- All accessibility checks pass
- Bundle size < 200KB

Iteration Limits

Always set limits to prevent infinite loops:

Improve the algorithm performance.
Maximum 5 iterations.
Stop early if improvement < 5% between iterations.

---

Integration with Claude Code

With TodoWrite

Track refinement iterations:

TodoWrite:
- [x] Initial implementation
- [x] Fix: handle empty arrays
- [x] Fix: add input validation
- [ ] Optimization: memoize expensive calculations

With Hooks

Auto-validate after each change:

# .claude/hooks.yaml
post_edit:
  - command: "npm run lint && npm test"
    on_failure: "report"

Claude sees failures and can self-correct.

With /compact

When context grows during iterations:

/compact

Continue refining the search algorithm.
We've made good progress, focus on the remaining issues.

Checkpointing

After significant progress:

Good progress. Let's checkpoint:
- Commit what we have
- List remaining issues
- Continue with the next priority

---

Iteration Strategies

Breadth-First

Fix all issues at same level before going deeper:

First pass: Fix all type errors
Second pass: Fix all lint warnings
Third pass: Improve test coverage
Fourth pass: Optimize performance

Depth-First

Complete one area fully before moving on:

1. Perfect the authentication flow (all aspects)
2. Then move to user management
3. Then move to settings

Priority-Based

Address by importance:

Iterate in this order:
1. Security issues (critical)
2. Data integrity bugs (high)
3. UX problems (medium)
4. Code style (low)

---

Anti-Patterns

Moving Target

# Wrong
"Actually, let's change the approach entirely..."
(Repeated 5 times)

# Right
Commit to an approach, iterate within it.
If approach is wrong, explicitly restart.

Perfectionism Loop

# Wrong
Keep improving forever

# Right
Set clear "good enough" criteria:
- Tests pass
- Handles main use cases
- No critical issues
→ Ship it, improve later

Lost Context

# Wrong
After 50 iterations, forget what the goal was

# Right
Periodically restate the goal:
"Reminder: we're building a rate limiter.
Current state: basic implementation works.
Next: add Redis backend."

---

Example Session

Initial Request

Create a debounce function in TypeScript.

Iteration 1

Looks good. Add:
- Generic type support for any function signature
- Option to execute on leading edge

Iteration 2

Better. Issues:
- The return type should preserve the original function's return type
- Add cancellation support

Iteration 3

Almost there. Final polish:
- Add JSDoc comments
- Export the types separately
- Add unit tests

Completion

Perfect. Commit this as "feat: add debounce utility with full TypeScript support"

---

See Also

• tdd-with-claude.md — TDD is iterative refinement with tests
• plan-driven.md — Plan before iterating
• ../methodologies.md — Iterative Loops methodology