WordPress 
An effective AI coding workflow gives every proposed change a clear purpose and a way to check it. Without that structure, a conversation can produce a growing collection of patches that no one fully understands. A repeatable process helps you keep control as the application grows.
Suppose you want to add a date filter to an existing reporting screen. The safest starting point is the current report: how it retrieves data, who can access it, what its tests cover, and which conventions the interface already follows.
Load the project context
Read the relevant project guidance, setup instructions, and nearby code before asking for implementation. Supply the assistant with the files that own the behavior, the supported environment, and any known constraints. Explain whether the change affects an existing public interface or only an internal screen.
Keep credentials and private customer data out of examples. Use redacted logs and synthetic records when possible, and understand the data handling settings of the tools you use. More context is useful only when it is relevant and appropriate to share.
Agree on one small result
For the date filter, define the timezone, inclusive or exclusive boundaries, the empty state, and what happens when the start date follows the end date. Ask for a brief explanation of the proposed approach before the code change.
Make the task small enough that its result can be inspected in one sitting. Adding filtering, replacing the chart library, redesigning navigation, and moving the reporting database together makes failures harder to explain. Save unrelated improvements for separate changes.
Review the actual diff
Inspect every changed file, including configuration and dependency files. Check whether the implementation reuses the existing query and authorization path. Look for unrelated formatting, duplicate helpers, invented APIs, and extra libraries introduced for a small task.
Ask the assistant to explain anything you cannot follow, then compare that explanation with the code. An explanation is useful context, not evidence that the implementation is correct. Verify unfamiliar library behavior against its official documentation.
Test the whole user action
Check a normal range, a boundary date, an empty result, an invalid range, and a user without access. Confirm that exporting a filtered report follows the same rules as displaying it. Run appropriate existing checks and inspect the real interface at the screen sizes you support.
If a test fails, preserve the failure evidence and investigate the cause. Repeatedly asking for a new patch without understanding what changed can hide the original problem under unrelated code.
Leave a clear handoff
- Record what behavior changed and why.
- Include the checks that passed and any known limitations.
- Update instructions when setup or user behavior changes.
- Keep the change in version control with a meaningful description.
- Identify the next task without silently expanding the current one.
This process works for solo creators and teams because it makes progress inspectable. For a deeper review checklist, read how to review AI-generated code. The goal is a change you can explain, test, and maintain after the conversation ends.