The work in plain language
Inspect the change. Prove the behaviour.
Claude Code training is repository-based learning for developers using Claude Code within a controlled engineering workflow. Paloren teaches task scoping, context preparation, permission decisions, testing and review through a safe example project. Learners should be comfortable with Git, a terminal and the project language. Approved access and test setup are checked before the workshop. Participants complete an independent issue and a follow-up trial plan. Training does not require production credentials, authorise deployment or promise faster delivery without evidence about review effort and defects.
01 / 04Claude Code training
Start with a bounded issue in a safe repository
Claude Code training begins with a development task small enough to inspect completely. Learners receive a training repository, an issue description and acceptance tests. They explore the existing behaviour before asking for a change, identify relevant files and write a bounded implementation brief. The exercise separates reading a repository from authorising edits or commands. Participants compare the proposed approach with the issue and challenge unnecessary changes. A successful task is not simply code that runs once. It is a change whose scope, behaviour and remaining risks can be explained by the developer who will review it and take responsibility for the result.
- Training repository with a reproducible issue
- File scope and acceptance criteria before edits
- Human review of proposed and completed changes
02 / 04Claude Code training
Treat permissions and external tools as design choices
Developer training includes deciding what the coding tool may read, change or execute. Learners examine the difference between local inspection, a test command, a package change and an external action. The session uses a non-production environment without live customer records or deployment credentials. If external tool connections or Model Context Protocol concepts are in scope, exercises use a mock service with narrow permissions. Repository instructions help express conventions but are not treated as a complete security boundary. The team practises stopping when authority is unclear and collecting the evidence needed for review. Broad execution access is not a prerequisite for learning useful coding workflows.
- Command and permission classification exercise
- Mock integration with no production authority
- Escalation notes for actions outside the task
03 / 04Claude Code training
Use an agenda that includes failure and recovery
Claude Code learners need familiarity with a terminal, Git and the language used in the training project. Before the session, they confirm approved access, installation requirements and the ability to run the example tests. The agenda covers repository orientation, a bounded change, test execution, diff review and a deliberately failing case. Participants practise explaining a failure before attempting a fix and preserving unrelated work. The final assessment uses a new issue rather than repeating the demonstration. Longer sessions can add refactoring or a mock integration, but the core exercise always includes evidence review and a safe way to recover the training project.
- Preflight for repository, tool access and tests
- Guided change with a failing test to diagnose
- Independent issue with diff and test evidence
04 / 04Claude Code training
Measure reviewed engineering work rather than generated code
The follow-up for Claude Code training looks at accepted changes and the work required to review them. Counting generated lines or commands does not establish engineering improvement. A bounded trial can compare issue completion, review comments, rework and defects while accounting for task difficulty. Learners prepare a team checklist covering context, scope, tests and decisions needing approval. Engineering leads decide where the method fits existing review and release practices. Training does not introduce an autonomous deployment pipeline or promise a velocity multiplier. Any rollout involving internal systems, wider permissions or unattended execution requires its own technical assessment and operating controls.
- Review checklist for AI-assisted changes
- Trial measures including rework and defects
- Follow-up with engineering ownership and rollout boundaries
What you take forward
Not just a session. Something to work with.
Technical prerequisite checklist
Safe training repository
Issue and acceptance-test pack
Permission decision exercise
Independent assessment feedback
Team review checklist
- 01
Preflight the project
Confirm approved access and a clean, runnable training repository.
- 02
Bound the issue
State file scope, behaviour, acceptance tests and action limits.
- 03
Build and verify
Inspect changes, run tests and diagnose a deliberate failure.
- 04
Review team use
Assess a bounded trial using accepted changes and rework evidence.
Before we begin
Your questions.
Straight answers.
Can non-developers take this course?
This course assumes participants can understand a repository and judge code changes in the chosen language. Non-developers should begin with business Claude or AI literacy training. Technical founders can attend when they meet the prerequisites, regardless of company size or formal job title.
Can we use our actual codebase?
Potentially, after scope, access, intellectual property and information-handling requirements are agreed. A dedicated training repository is the safer default and allows deliberate failures without affecting delivery. No production credentials or live deployment access are needed to learn task scoping, test review and bounded editing.
Do you cover MCP or agent workflows?
Those topics can be added when they fit the team's experience and approved environment. Exercises use mock integrations and clearly bounded tasks. We confirm the installed tool version and available configuration during preparation, avoiding promises about specific command names or features that may change.
Will the workshop change our release pipeline?
No. It produces practice results and recommendations for engineering review. Changes to continuous integration, release permissions or unattended execution need separate approval and implementation. Developers remain responsible for reviewing code and evidence under the team's existing standards before a change is merged or released.
Your team. Your next chapter.