Claude Code vs. Legacy .NET: I Picked the Helper, Not the Hero

Last Tuesday, I was staring down a System.InvalidOperationException: 'Sequence contains no elements.' at MyLegacyProject.DataService.GetActiveUsersAsync() stack trace. It wasn't the AI's fault directly, but it was generated from a prompt I'd given Claude Sonnet 4.6 to "fix" a related issue in a particularly ancient .NET Framework 4.8 service. That's when I realized this wasn't going to be a simple copy-paste job.

Our team, like many, has a few critical, undocumented services nobody wants to touch. The idea was to see if Claude Code, specifically the Opus 4.7 model, could accelerate our understanding of this spaghetti code, perhaps even generate some initial fixes or tests, reducing the mental load on our ai coding team dotnet members. Honestly, I didn't expect much from this initially; I figured it would be another glorified search engine. I was wrong, but not in the way I expected.

Unraveling Legacy Code with Claude Opus 4.7

My initial goal was to get Claude to explain a particularly dense, 500-line method in an old DataService class. This method, CalculateComplexBillingAsync, had a dozen nested if statements and some truly creative LINQ queries. I copied the entire method, pasted it into the Claude Opus 4.7 web interface, and asked: "Explain this C# method, identify potential issues, and suggest how it could be refactored for readability and testability, targeting .NET 9 and C# 13 features."

What I got back wasn't just a line-by-line explanation, but a high-level summary of its purpose, a breakdown of its core logic flows, and even a couple of specific edge cases I'd never considered (like a FirstOrDefault() without a null check, which was the root of my Sequence contains no elements error last week). It even proposed using record types for some DTOs and IAsyncEnumerable for streaming results, which was a nice touch for a .NET 9 target. For me, the contextual understanding Claude provided was a game-changer. It helped me mentally model the legacy code far faster than just stepping through it in Visual Studio 2026.

// My prompt (simplified)
// "Explain this C# method, identify potential issues, and suggest refactoring for .NET 9/C# 13."
// (Followed by 500 lines of legacy C# code)

// Claude's (simplified) response snippet:
/*
This method primarily calculates billing based on various user activity logs.
Potential Issue 1: Lack of null checking on `FirstOrDefault()`. If `userActivityLogs` is empty or no matching log is found, this will throw `InvalidOperationException`.
Refactoring Suggestion:
Replace `FirstOrDefault().Property` with:

csharp
var log = userActivityLogs.FirstOrDefault(l => l.UserId == userId);
if (log != null)
{
// ... proceed with log.Property
}
else
{
// Handle case where no log is found, e.g., default value or throw specific exception.
}

*/

Integrating into the AI Coding Team DotNet Workflow (and the Handoff)

The real challenge wasn't getting Claude to generate code or explanations, but integrating it effectively into our existing ai coding team dotnet workflow. My colleagues, mostly Rider 2026 users, were initially skeptical. "Another Copilot?" was the common refrain. My personal workflow evolved: I'd use Claude for the initial understanding or boilerplate generation, then bring that into my IDE for refinement.

One specific "gotcha" I hit repeatedly was Claude's tendency to generate C# 13 preview features or .NET 10 preview APIs when I wasn't explicit enough about our stable .NET 9 target. It took me an embarrassing amount of time to realize the generated code often wouldn't compile without slight modifications or specific using directives, even when I thought I'd given it enough context. This meant that claude code review wasn't about blindly accepting its output; it was about treating Claude's suggestions as a very smart junior developer's first draft. Human oversight remained critical. We started treating Claude's output like any other code submitted by a new team member – it needed thorough review, especially for correctness and adherence to our coding standards.

// Claude generated this (hypothetically, for .NET 10 preview)
// Example of a small issue I'd often fix manually
public static class FeatureToggle
{
    // .NET 10 preview feature (hypothetically)
    public static bool IsEnabled(string featureName) =>
        Environment.GetExperimentalFeature(featureName) == "enabled";
}

// My manual fix for .NET 9:
public static class FeatureToggle
{
    public static bool IsEnabled(string featureName) =>
        Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable($"FEATURE_{featureName.ToUpperInvariant()}") == "enabled";
}

After a month, I'm still figuring out the best way to leverage Claude Code. It's fantastic for understanding complex codebases and generating initial drafts or unit tests, especially when dealing with legacy systems. However, it's not a set-it-and-forget-it solution. The handoff between AI generation and human refinement is where the real work happens, and it requires careful attention to detail, especially regarding target framework and language versions.

If you've managed to integrate AI code generation tools into your team's .NET code review process without major headaches, I'd love to hear what broke for you and how you fixed it.