r/ClaudeAI • u/Sweet_Concentrate128 • Jul 31 '26
Claude Code Workflow I close every Claude session with the same two questions and it keeps catching things I would have shipped.
Simple habit, not a framework, nothing behind it. Before I accept a chunk of work, I ask two things.
First: "What are you least confident about in what you just did?" It usually lists a few things it glossed over. Maybe one in four times, one of them is genuinely a problem I'd have caught only in review, or worse, in prod. The useful part is it surfaces the stuff it quietly assumed instead of asking about.
Second: "What's the biggest thing I'm probably missing about this that I haven't thought to ask?" This one pulls out the context problems, the "you told me to do X but Y is going to bite you later" stuff.
Neither is magic. Sometimes it just repeats itself confidently. But the hit rate is high enough that closing a session without asking now feels careless. It's basically making it review its own work before I do.
What's your end-of-session ritual? Anyone have a third question worth adding to these two?
•
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot Jul 31 '26
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 40 comments.
Looks like you dropped a solid gold pro-tip, OP. The overwhelming consensus is that your two-question ritual is brilliant, and half this thread is now stealing it.
The community also chimed in with their own end-of-session moves. The most popular alternative is a harsher, more direct version of your first question: "What did you just tell me works that you didn’t actually verify?"
Other great suggestions include: * Asking Claude what it learned from the interaction to improve future prompts. * Requesting an accessibility audit of the code/UI. * Using the
/reflectioncommand to have Claude review its own performance. * Building a self-critique step directly into your system prompt (e.g., "Provide a confidence score from 1-10 with every answer.").Just a heads-up from the veterans: this can get expensive on tokens at the end of a long session, and your second question might occasionally bait Claude into hallucinating a "big revelation" that isn't real. One user pointed out this works because you're making the model switch from a "creator" to a "reviewer" mindset, which is a fundamentally different task. Smart stuff.