€50,000 Quote vs. Two Hours with Claude Code

One hour. Fifty-five minutes.

That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code.

This is vibe coding applied to a real business problem: I described what I needed in plain language and the AI wrote the code.

Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool, the one the company needed. By evening, it was running on staging.

What Is Claude Code?

Claude Code is Anthropic's AI coding agent. It runs in your terminal, reads and writes files across a whole project, runs commands, handles your Git workflow, and works through a task step by step from a plain-language description of what you want. It is not a chat window that hands you a snippet to paste somewhere. It is an agent that does the work inside your actual codebase.

That is the distinction most people outside engineering have not registered. When I tell them I built a production tool in under two hours, they picture me typing questions into a box. That is not what happened. I described the tool, the agent proposed a plan, and it began writing and testing real code. I reviewed it, corrected it, and shipped it.

The short answer to what Claude Code is comes from what it let me do: replace a month and a half of quoted agency work with a single afternoon. The full story is further down this page.

How to Use Claude Code

The mechanics are simple. You install it, point it at a project, and tell it what you want in ordinary language. The skill is not in the typing. It is in knowing precisely what you want built, and being able to tell when the agent is confidently wrong.

What I have learned using it on real, production projects:

Bring a clear idea, not a specification. My only input on the €50,000 tool was a clear picture of what it had to do. No architecture diagram. That was enough.

Give it memory and context. Most of the value is in the setup. I have written about training an AI agent that learns between sessions, so it does not start cold every time.

Build the tool instead of compromising with off-the-shelf software. I built my own analytics system with it, shaped around what I need to see, not around what a ready-made product allows.

Claude Code vs ChatGPT, and Claude vs ChatGPT

This is the comparison most people are reaching for, and it quietly mixes two different things. ChatGPT and Claude, the chat assistants, are conversational. You ask, they answer. Claude Code is an agent built on Claude that acts on your machine. Comparing Claude Code with ChatGPT is comparing a builder with an adviser.

For coding specifically, the difference I feel day to day is autonomy. A chat assistant, whichever brand, hands you text. Claude Code does the task. I have also tested running local models on my own hardware, and written about the limitations of local AI models when you try to use them for work like this. For now, my real work happens with the cloud agent.

THE €50,000 QUOTE FOR A SIMPLE PILOT

The task came from our CEO. A tool that our customers would interact with directly on the website. The scope was specific enough to define. Not trivial, but also not an engineering mystery.

I took over the conversation with one Czech software firm. Colleagues had started it but did not have the capacity to continue.

I asked for a rough idea of price and timeline. Not a binding quote. A range. Enough to plan.

Their reply was a single sentence I will not forget:

"We cannot give you an estimate, not even a rough one."

For a rough estimate, they explained, they would first need to conduct a paid analysis. Two and a half thousand euros. To examine the problem properly.

I did not take the analysis.

ONE AND A HALF PERSON-MONTHS: FOR WHAT

Later in the conversation, without the paid analysis, the number slipped out anyway.

Roughly one and a half person-months of work. Somewhere above €50,000 to launch a simple pilot.

A simple pilot.

For over fifty thousand euros.

Five years ago, I would have taken the quote to our two CEOs. We would have weighed it against an off-the-shelf product and its limitations.

There is a third option now.

BUILDING IT WITH CLAUDE CODE IN UNDER TWO HOURS

I walked into the IT meeting with a short presentation. I had mapped the options: build with the external firm we had already been talking to, or build it ourselves with an AI coding agent.

That same afternoon, I built it.

The development did not need iteration cycles. The agent proposed a plan, started implementing, and within the first few minutes something was already working. The rest was refinement. Adding features. Tightening behaviour. Then handling the edge cases I noticed as I tested.

The only thing I brought to that build was a clear idea of what the tool was supposed to do.

Not a specification. Not an architecture diagram. Just a clear idea.

That turned out to be enough.

In Is AI Making Us Dumber? I described interview candidates who came in with polished AI outputs they could not defend, outputs built on problems they had not understood. They had delegated the thinking before they had done it. This project worked because I had done the opposite. I knew what the tool needed to do. The agent did the rest.

WHAT SOFTWARE AGENCIES ARE REALLY CHARGING FOR

I want to be careful here.