claude-code-usage

Claude Code Best Practices

Language Rule

Always respond in the same language the user is using. If the user asks in Chinese, respond in Chinese. If in English, respond in English.

Context Management Rules

Rule	Why
One window = one task	Mixing tasks pollutes context and degrades output quality
Use `/clear` over `/compact`	Clean start is more reliable than compressed context
`/clear` after complex tasks	Prevents old context from interfering with new work
Copy key info to new windows	Don't rely on context persistence — paste critical details

Task Execution Strategy

Task Type	Recommended Approach
Small bug fix (few lines)	Describe directly, let Claude modify in-place
Large feature / refactor	`/plan` → review approach → `/clear` → paste plan → execute step by step
Multi-file changes	Must use `/plan` workflow — never modify multiple files without a plan
Code analysis / learning	Ask Claude to analyze directly — no plan needed
Debugging	Provide error message + file path + relevant code — ask for root cause

Prompt Techniques

Do This

Give specific paths: "Modify the _transfer function in src/MyToken.sol"
Give examples: "Input: 100 tokens, Expected: 95 tokens after 5% fee"
Set boundaries: "Only modify this function, don't touch other code"
Reference tests: "The fix should make test_transfer_feeDeduction pass"

Avoid This

Vague references: "Modify that transfer function" — which one? Where?
Open-ended requests without constraints: "Make it better"
Multiple unrelated tasks in one message

Ambiguity Resolution — When Instructions Are Unclear

When a user instruction is vague, open-ended, or could be interpreted in multiple ways, do NOT guess and proceed. Proactively analyze the instruction and present all possible interpretations for the user to confirm before taking action.

Trigger Conditions

Activate ambiguity resolution when the instruction matches ANY of these patterns:

Pattern	Example
No target specified	"Optimize it" — optimize what?
Multiple possible scopes	"Add a check" — which function? what kind of check?
Unclear boundary	"Change the permissions" — add? remove? which role?
Implicit context	"Handle it the same as last time" — what was "last time"?
Conflicting possibilities	"Handle the security issue" — which vulnerability? what level?

Analysis Dimensions

When ambiguity is detected, analyze across these dimensions:

Scope — Which files / contracts / functions could be affected?
Action — What operation is intended? (add / modify / delete / refactor / fix)
Skill match — Which skills are relevant? Map each interpretation to applicable /skill
Impact — What side effects could each interpretation have?
Constraints — Are there implicit boundaries the user might assume?

Output Format

Present findings as a numbered list:

我检测到你的指令存在多种可能的解读，在开始之前需要确认边界：

**可能的解读：**

1. **[解读A]** — [具体描述]
   - 涉及：[files / contracts]
   - 关联 skill：/skill-name
   - 影响范围：[scope]

2. **[解读B]** — [具体描述]
   - 涉及：[files / contracts]
   - 关联 skill：/skill-name
   - 影响范围：[scope]

**请确认：**
- 你想要哪个解读？（可多选）
- 是否有额外的约束条件？

Example

User: "处理一下这个合约的安全问题"

AI: 我检测到你的指令存在多种可能的解读：

1. **运行 Slither 静态分析** — 用 slither MCP 扫描，修复高危问题
   - 关联 skill：/solidity-security
   - 影响范围：仅修复工具检测到的问题

2. **手动安全审计** — 按审计清单逐项检查（重入、权限、输入验证等）
   - 关联 skill：/solidity-audit
   - 影响范围：完整审查，可能涉及较多修改

3. **修复已知漏洞** — 你已知有特定安全问题，需要定位并修复
   - 关联 skill：/solidity-security
   - 影响范围：仅限特定问题

4. **DeFi 安全加固** — 添加防鲸鱼、防闪电贷等保护机制
   - 关联 skill：/defi-security
   - 影响范围：可能改变合约接口

请确认你想要哪个方向？

Key Rules

Rule	Why
Never guess	Wrong guesses waste more time than one clarification round
Show skill connections	Map each interpretation to relevant /skill so user knows what workflow triggers
Respect confirmation	User says "just go with the 2nd one" → proceed immediately, no further questions
Context-aware skip	If conversation history already disambiguates, skip this process and act directly

Meta-Prompting — When Things Go Wrong

When Claude's response misses the mark, don't just rephrase and retry. Use Meta-Prompting (reverse prompting) to let Claude diagnose the gap, then re-ask with complete context.

Four Prompt Types

Type	When to Use	Template
Diagnose	Answer was wrong or incomplete	"What key information was missing from my question just now that prevented you from giving the correct answer in one go? Please list each item."
Rewrite	You don't know how to improve the question	"Please help me rewrite my previous question, filling in the context you think was missing, so that you can give the correct answer in one go."
Template	Prevent same mistake next time	"For this type of question, what information should I provide so you can solve it in one go? Please give me a question template."
Pre-check	Before Claude starts working	"Before you start writing code, list all the information you still need me to provide."

Recommended Flow

Step 1: Ask your question
        ↓ (answer is wrong or incomplete)
Step 2: Use [Diagnose] — "我的问题中缺少了什么？"
        ↓ (Claude lists missing info)
Step 3: Use [Rewrite] — "帮我重写这个问题"
        ↓ (Claude outputs a complete, self-contained prompt)
Step 4: Copy the rewritten prompt, `/clear`, paste and send
        ↓ (clean context + complete prompt = correct answer)

Practical Example

# Round 1 — incomplete question
User: "帮我写一个 staking 合约"
Claude: (generates a basic staking contract, but missing reward logic)

# Round 2 — diagnose
User: "我刚才的提问中缺少了哪些信息？"
Claude: "你没有说明：
  1. 质押代币和奖励代币是否相同
  2. 奖励分发机制（按时间/按区块/固定APR）
  3. 是否需要锁仓期
  4. 是否需要紧急提取功能
  5. 管理员权限范围"

# Round 3 — rewrite
User: "帮我重写这个问题"
Claude: "请帮我写一个 Staking 合约，要求如下：
  - 质押代币：ERC20 TOKEN_A，奖励代币：ERC20 TOKEN_B
  - 奖励机制：按质押时长线性释放，年化 12%
  - 锁仓期：7 天最短锁仓
  - 紧急提取：支持，但扣除 10% 罚金
  - 管理员：可更新奖励率，不可触碰用户质押资金
  - 安全：使用 ReentrancyGuard + SafeERC20
  请基于 OpenZeppelin 5.x，Solidity ^0.8.20，Foundry 项目结构。"

# Round 4 — /clear, paste rewritten prompt, get correct result

Key Principle

Don't guess what you missed — let Claude tell you. One round of meta-prompting saves multiple rounds of trial and error.

Post-Correction Rule

Every time after correcting a mistake, always end with: "Update your CLAUDE.md so you won't make the same mistake again." This ensures lessons learned are persisted into the project memory, preventing the same error from recurring in future sessions.

Git Operation Rules

Always run git diff before committing to review changes
Only commit — do not push unless explicitly requested
Never push directly to main/master branch
Stage specific files — never use git add . in Solidity projects (risk of committing .env)

Foundry-Specific Workflow

Action	Command
Before committing	`forge fmt && forge test`
After modifying contracts	`forge build` to check compilation
Before PR	`forge test --gas-report` to check gas impact
Debugging failed test	`forge test --match-test <name> -vvvv` for full trace

Quick Command Reference

Command	Purpose
`/clear`	Clear context, start fresh
`/plan`	Enter planning mode — analyze before modifying
`/help`	View all available commands
`/compact`	Compress context (prefer `/clear` instead)

Project-level Configuration

Create .claude/instructions.md in the project root with project-specific rules. Claude automatically reads it at the start of every conversation — no manual loading needed.