I’m feeling overwhelmed by all the different Claude setup recommendations out there. There are so many MCP server suggestions, productivity hacks, markdown systems, and template files to choose from. It’s getting confusing.
My current approach is pretty basic: I write short prompts (usually 2-4 sentences), then add “ultrathink: verify your response and check for errors” with specific validation instructions when needed. When the conversation gets too long, I clear the context and start over, sometimes asking for re-verification after the reset.
That’s literally it. I don’t use planning mode, don’t save outputs to markdown files, and haven’t installed any additional tools or servers. I do set up a basic CLAUDE.md file with “/init” and make small manual adjustments over time, but that’s about it.
Am I actually missing out on something important? Part of me wants a system that handles the “check your work” part automatically without me having to decide when to use “ultrathink” or not. I’d prefer if it just figured that stuff out on its own so I can focus purely on writing good prompts and providing the right context.
Should I invest time learning these complex workflows, or just wait for better models that handle this complexity internally?
Your approach makes total sense for most people. I went down the rabbit hole with complex setups and MCP servers too - spent months tinkering, then ended up with something way simpler than where I started. Most of these elaborate workflows are just solutions hunting for problems. Unless you’re doing specialized work that actually needs automated file management or specific integrations, the overhead isn’t worth it. Your manual ‘ultrathink’ method lets you control when verification matters. That’s probably more efficient than auto-checking every response. I’d stick with what you’ve got until you hit a real wall. The models are improving fast - most of these workarounds will be obsolete in a year or two anyway. Better to nail the prompting fundamentals than waste time on elaborate systems that don’t add real value.
Been there. Three years ago I was hoarding massive prompt libraries and testing every MCP server that dropped. Complete waste of time.
Game changer was realizing 90% of my Claude use breaks down to 5 things: code reviews, docs, problem solving, data analysis, quick research. Mapped it out and stopped chasing the perfect system.
Built dead simple templates for each one instead. Code review template auto-includes error checking and security stuff. Problem solving has verification steps baked in. Takes 10 seconds to grab the right template - no more forgetting “ultrathink.”
No servers, no complex workflows. Just 5 text files I copy-paste.
That automatic verification you want? Build it into your templates upfront. Way more reliable than hoping Claude remembers to self-check.
Your approach works. Just systematize your 3-4 most common tasks and ditch the rest. Consistency beats complexity every time.
Had this exact problem at work when our team was drowning in manual Claude interactions for code reviews and docs. Everyone was doing that same “ultrathink” dance.
You’re spot on about wanting automation for verification. But instead of waiting for better models or building complex MCP setups, I just connected Claude to a simple workflow automation.
Now when I send prompts, the system auto-adds verification steps based on request type. Code gets tested, docs get fact-checked, creative stuff gets tone-reviewed. No more manual “check your work” commands.
It handles context management too. When conversations hit token limits, it saves the important bits and starts fresh automatically. I never think about clearing context anymore.
Took 30 minutes to set up, saves hours weekly. Way simpler than those MCP server rabbit holes.
Your instincts are solid - most complex workflows are overkill. This kind of smart automation hits the sweet spot between your simple approach and overcomplicated systems.
Been using Claude for 8 months and you’re spot on about keeping it simple. People get caught in the complexity trap - they spend more time managing workflows than actually working. Your method sounds solid, especially clearing context when conversations get messy. That’s more advanced than most people realize. The automatic verification you want? Doesn’t really exist yet. MCP servers and fancy setups just add layers that break constantly. I’ve tried multiple productivity systems and ended up maintaining them instead of doing real work. The models keep getting better at self-correction and reasoning. I’d bet on that instead of investing in current workarounds. Your instinct to wait for better models while nailing your prompts is the smarter play.