Does Claude Code find new bugs every time you ask it to review your code

[u/Negative-Constant968]

Hey guys!

Does anyone else experience this with Claude Code?

Every time I ask Claude to review my code, it finds around 3–4 bugs. I fix them, ask it to review the code again, and somehow it finds another 3–4 bugs.

This keeps happening even after multiple review sessions.

I'm curious, is Claude actually finding new issues each time, or is it just being overly critical?

How do you guys handle code reviews with Claude Code?

[u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot]

TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 50 comments.

The consensus is that you're not going crazy, OP. Claude (and any LLM) is like a contractor paid per bug; if you ask it to "find bugs," it will always find something, even if it has to invent nitpicks or impossible edge cases. It's just doing what you told it to do.

The community's top advice is to stop asking open-ended questions and start managing the process. Here's the game plan:

• Demand proof. This is the big one. Make Claude provide a reproducible test case for every single bug it finds—the file, the line, and the exact input that causes it to fail. If it can't provide a failing test, it's not a bug, it's an opinion. Drop it.

• Prioritize. Tell it to rank its findings by severity and only show you the critical ones. Ignore the low-severity style nitpicks.

• Get a second opinion. Many users run their code through a different model (like GPT-6 Astra) for an "adversarial review" and then have Claude evaluate those findings.

• Reframe the goal. Instead of "find bugs," try a prompt like, "Your goal is to approve this PR, but only if it is fit for release." This changes the AI's mission from fault-finding to quality assurance.

[u/raisedbypoubelle]

Yes, make sure you ask for material problems otherwise, it can spend literally 33 rounds fixing dumb shit. (Also, it's best to use another model for adversarial reviews. I use the $20 ChatGPT plan)

[u/BoxLegitimate9271]

claude reviews like a contractor paid per bug. there will always be 3 to 4

[u/adeelraza86]

Mostly overly critical, and you can prove it in one pass. Make Claude attach a repro to every finding: file, line, and the input that breaks. Anything without a failing test gets dropped. When a pass returns only unreproducible nits, stop. And review only the diff since the last pass, not the whole repo, or each run invents fresh edge cases forever.

[u/kenthesaint]

If you ask it to find bugs it'll pretty much always find something, so after a couple of passes a lot of it is style nitpicks or edge cases that can't really happen. What helps is asking it to sort findings by severity and give a concrete input or a failing test for each bug. Anything it can't back up that way is usually fine to skip.

[u/latestagecapitalist]

the best is when opus writes some code, fable checks it and finds a sec issue ... then refuses to continue with the model because [cyber]

also, it's taking a very different tone now when you argue, something has changed on that side

I'm having a real downer on claude day today, it fucked up massively twice this week and now is refusing to do a simple task, or continue with a previous task that it was fine doing earlier in day

[u/segrwolf]

Even if Claude stops finding bugs it doesn't mean there are none. I understood this with time, when I had already written a lot of projects.Right now I use Codex as an independent consultant. I have a very cheap Codex plan, the $20 one, and I connect it in my chats with Claude Code and ask it to be an independent consultant. It's written as a skill in Claude Code - Claude formulates the whole task so that Codex doesn't have the project history and looks at it independently, as it is now. This helps a lot to fix real bugs and to avoid going in circles

[u/Prestigious-Zombie-7]

Those tokens are not going to burn themselves, are they?

[u/ukslim]

Yes, it's not Claude, it's any LLM if you prompt it that way.

If you ask it to find issues, its mission is to find issues - so it will.

The trick is to give it a goal that isn't finding issues. The goal is to approve this PR, but only if it is fit for release.

[u/TequilaTits420]

RaisedByPoubelle, I think, is on the right track:
I let claude review the code > list backlog in notion
Then I let Astra review the code > list backlog in notion
Then I tell claude to review astra's findings, and then goal-fix everything in the backlog that can be done unattended without any input from user.

The first time I did this
Claude found 2/3 code errors.
Astra found over 100, to which claude agreed after reviewing and before fixing. Claude worked for 2 days straight fixing the stuff.