Claude Code overview docs: how to navigate, configure, and verify work

Start with the Claude Code document that answers your question

Claude Code's official overview is the right first stop when you need to understand what the product is and how its documentation is organized. It points to the details that matter after that: getting started, working in a project, configuring behavior, permissions, integrations, and troubleshooting.

Use the overview to choose a reference, then read the specific page for your environment. These are useful starting points:

Record claude --version when reproducing a problem: current documentation can describe behavior that an older installed version does not have. The documentation index helps a coding agent locate the relevant official page. It is a directory of references, not permission to execute every example it finds.

For example, imagine a developer asks Claude Code to investigate why an account-import job fails. The first request can be deliberately narrow: identify the code path, the input validation, and the test command; do not edit files or run anything beyond the project’s documented checks. The agent can then name the files and make uncertainty visible. A follow-up can ask for a plan and the smallest test that distinguishes the suspected cause from a bad fixture. Only then is there a concrete patch to review.

Before approving a patch, check that the proposed test reaches the failing path. Claude Code can help read the codebase, edit files, and run permitted tools; the reviewer still has to judge whether that evidence supports the change.

Configure the repository before you delegate work

The repository is part of the configuration. Before assigning an implementation task, make sure its instructions tell a new contributor how to run the relevant checks, where the source of truth lives, and which files should not be changed casually. Anthropic documents project configuration separately because the right setup depends on the codebase and environment.

Keep instructions factual and short. “Run this command for unit tests” is better than “be careful with tests.” “Do not change generated files; edit this source file instead” is better than a long list of warnings. The goal is not to make a coding agent guess your team’s habits. It is to give it the context a careful engineer would need before touching the work.

Configuration does not replace review. A project instruction can tell Claude Code which test command to use, but it cannot prove that the test exercises a newly added permission check. A useful request asks the agent to explain the test’s coverage and name the negative case it does not cover. That makes the remaining decision visible to the person reviewing the work.

Set the permission boundary before the task starts

Claude Code’s permissions documentation is worth reading before a session gets access to real systems. Permission rules govern which tools and actions a session can use; organization policy may also constrain what local configuration can allow.

Treat that as part of the task definition. A code-reading task may need access to the repository and a test command. It does not automatically need a production credential, an ability to publish a release, or permission to contact a customer. Use the narrowest access that lets the agent produce the evidence you need. For consequential work, have the system owner choose the target environment and review the proposed diff before the action is applied.

This is also where the human, script, and coding-agent distinction matters. They may all invoke a command, but they do not all carry the same authority. A script can run unattended. A coding agent can make tool calls from a prompt. A teammate owner can decide whether a configuration is appropriate for the people and customers affected by it. Keep those roles separate instead of assuming that terminal access settles the policy question.

Make testing a planned deliverable, not the last command

Ask for tests or a verification plan before implementation, especially when the change crosses a boundary: authentication, payment, notification delivery, a third-party integration, or a customer-facing response. The plan should name the behavior that changes, the behavior that must stay the same, and the evidence that will distinguish the two.

Suppose an import fix changes how a missing account owner is handled. A complete check includes one test for the newly accepted valid record and another for a malformed record that must still be rejected. If old imported records can exist, use a representative old record too. A green test suite that never passes through that data shape is reassuring only in appearance.

For a user interface change, pair automated checks with the actual visual state at the supported sizes. A screenshot can show a clipped error message; an interaction check can show whether the error clears after a valid value is entered. Neither test proves the other. The review should say exactly which evidence was checked and what is still outside its scope.

Use eesel CLI to review the same workspace from a terminal

eesel CLI gives a documentation maintainer a way to inspect the support teammate from a terminal or coding agent. It operates the same workspace and teammate as the dashboard. The maintainer can use the official CLI reference to choose the right observation commands, then use their JSON results to prepare a specific handoff to the support owner.

The documented npx form needs Node.js 18.17 or newer. JSON is the default output, so a person can read observations and a script, Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor can parse them without screen scraping. With an authorized workspace, confirm where the terminal is pointed:

npx @eesel/cli login
npx @eesel/cli whoami
npx @eesel/cli agents

Login changes local authentication state. Stop if whoami identifies an unexpected account or workspace. In CI or another unattended environment, EESEL_API_URL and EESEL_API_TOKEN take precedence over locally stored credentials, so the environment is part of the check.

For example, a fictional help-center update distinguishes archiving a project from deleting it: archiving removes it from the active view but preserves it. The documentation owner supplies that approved text and its source URL. Ask the coding agent to use the CLI docs to check whether the intended source is connected, what its download state shows, and whether standing instructions contradict the archive/delete distinction. Use the owner's explicit teammate name or ID:

SUPPORT_TEAMMATE="OWNER_APPROVED_TEAMMATE"
npx @eesel/cli status --agent "$SUPPORT_TEAMMATE"
npx @eesel/cli integrations --agent "$SUPPORT_TEAMMATE"
npx @eesel/cli integrations download list --agent "$SUPPORT_TEAMMATE"
npx @eesel/cli instructions --agent "$SUPPORT_TEAMMATE"

Report the matching source identifier or URL only if the output provides it; do not invent fields. Separate “connected,” “download reported,” and “answer verified.” Even a completed download does not prove that the current revision of this particular page is available or that a reply will use it. Quote any conflicting instruction and show the owner which question remains: source publication, processing, or the wording of an instruction.

If the owner chooses a write, first inspect the relevant command's --help. For a supported write, --dry-run previews the server call; it does not validate the resulting behavior. Apply only the approved change and read back the affected configuration.

A separate response evaluation needs approval for billed chats and a non-production teammate with consequential connected actions Disabled. In fresh conversations, provide the approved article excerpt and ask “Does archiving delete my project?” and “Why is my archived project absent from the active view?” Check both replies against the supplied distinction, then inspect activity and held approvals. This tests interpretation of the supplied note, not persistent ingestion. It does not authorize archiving or deleting anything. The owner still decides whether further source or live-channel verification is needed.

Bring Claude Code and eesel CLI into one reviewed workflow

Claude Code works best when its task has a clear shape: find the code path, explain a configuration, write a targeted test, or prepare a small patch. Its official docs help you find the right configuration and permission details; your repository and review process determine whether the work is safe to apply.

eesel CLI gives the same discipline to support-teammate setup. A person, script, or coding agent can inspect JSON from the same workspace the dashboard shows. The owner remains responsible for the teammate’s permissions, knowledge, and customer-facing policy. That makes the terminal useful without confusing access with authority.

Try eesel to set up a support teammate in the dashboard, inspect that same workspace through eesel CLI, and keep each customer-facing change under an owner’s review.