All services
Practice area
Claude Code enablement
Claude Code is configured, not installed. The gap between a team where it lifts everyone and a team where it lifts one person is almost entirely about what lives in version control versus what's sitting in somebody's home directory. That's a good problem to have, because it's fixable in a couple of weeks.
You probably need this if
- New people get noticeably different behavior than everyone else, and nobody knows why.
- Your instructions file has grown into something nobody reads and the model half-follows.
- Rules about test files load while you're editing infrastructure, and vice versa.
- It hangs in CI, waiting on an answer from a person who isn't there.
- Review output arrives as prose that something downstream has to guess at.
What you get
- Configuration the team actually shares
- Standards belong in the repo, where teammates get them on clone. Personal preference belongs in your own config and nowhere else. Most "it behaves differently for me" reports are one instruction in the wrong place — and there's a way to check rather than guess.
- Instructions split by subject
- One enormous rules file gets skimmed — by people and models alike. Testing, API conventions, deployment: separate, and pulled in where they're relevant.
- Rules that appear when they apply
- Conventions scoped to the files they actually govern, so opening a test file brings the testing rules and nothing else. Works for things scattered across the whole tree, which is exactly where a rules-file-per-folder falls apart.
- Your recurring work, one command away
- The three things your team does over and over, turned into shortcuts everyone has. Noisy ones run off to one side so their output doesn't crowd out the actual conversation, and the ones that could do damage get their hands tied.
- Review that runs without you
- Claude Code in your pipeline, emitting findings your tooling can post as comments directly, with your review standards written down so what comes back is worth reading rather than worth muting.
The judgment behind it
These are the calls that decide whether a system survives contact with production or just demos well. They are not obvious, and getting them wrong is rarely obvious either — until it is.
- Plan first when the plan is the hard part.
- Several defensible approaches, or a change touching forty files: think before typing. A one-file fix with a stack trace pointing straight at it: just fix it. The question is whether looking around would change the approach — not how nervous the change makes you.
- Whoever wrote the code is the worst reviewer of it.
- Still carrying the reasoning that produced the code makes it much harder to doubt any of it. A fresh reviewer with no memory of those decisions catches things that no amount of "review your work carefully" will.
- Always-on instructions are never free.
- Everything in the standing rules file gets paid for on every task, including all the unrelated ones. Universal standards earn that. A workflow used twice a month does not — that's what a shortcut is for.
- Keep the search noise out of the room.
- Exploring a codebase produces enormous output and a small conclusion. Run it off to the side and bring back the conclusion.
Engagement shape
Usually 2–4 weeks, often a workshop plus the implementation: a configuration audit, a structure your team will maintain, two or three shortcuts worth having, and a review job running in CI.