Why Your Claude-Generated Code Breaks Aftaier Two Weeks (And How to Fix It)

You asked Claude to build something. It worked. You shipped it. Three weeks later, something breaks in a way that's weirdly hard to debug. The code is technically correct, but it's built on assumptions that don't hold. Sound familiar? This isn't a prompting problem. It's a workflow problem. The pattern that causes most AI-assisted build failures Here's what actually happens in most Claude-assisted projects: You ask Claude a question Claude gives a confident, well-structured answer You trust it and build on top of it Claude's answer was based on assumptions it never surfaced Those assumptions compound across multiple sessions Weeks later, something downstream collapses The problem isn't that Claude is wrong. It's that Claude is fluent. It sounds correct even when it's filling gaps with educated guesses. And in long contexts — especially after compaction — it starts guessing more. The "stale context" failure mode Every Claude session has a context window. When you work on a project acros