サイトビルダーから卒業：Claude Codeで会社HPをフルスクラッチ構築した話 An engineer shares their experience migrating a corporate website from a no-code site buil…

This article recounts an engineer's experience of migrating their company's corporate website away from a no-code site builder and rebuilding it from scratch with the help of Claude Code. The piece focuses on the engineering perspective: the migration process, architectural decisions, and practical tips for working with an AI coding agent.

No-code site builders are attractive at the start of a project because they minimize setup and learning costs. Over time, however, teams often run into limitations around design flexibility, SEO and performance tuning, vendor lock-in, recurring subscription fees, and the difficulty of adding bespoke functionality. The author appears to have hit enough of these walls to justify the jump to a fully hand-coded site.

The central tool in the migration was Anthropic's Claude Code, a terminal-based agentic coding assistant that can read across a codebase, edit files, and run commands semi-autonomously. It sits alongside other AI-assisted development options such as GitHub Copilot, Cursor, OpenAI's Codex CLI, and Google's Gemini CLI, all of which have been gaining traction as practical day-to-day developer tools rather than novelties.

From an engineer's standpoint, a from-scratch rebuild raises a series of decisions that a site builder normally hides: which framework and rendering strategy to adopt, how to structure components, how to handle content updates without a heavyweight CMS, and how to integrate analytics and forms. The article likely shares concrete prompting patterns, ways of scoping tasks for the agent, and review workflows that keep the human in the loop. A common theme in recent write-ups about agentic coding is that delegating mechanical work to the AI lets engineers focus on information architecture and product decisions, and this case appears to fit that pattern.

At the same time, handing work to an AI does not remove engineering responsibility. Generated code still needs review for quality, security, and accessibility, and a corporate site that is expected to live for years places extra weight on maintainability. Choices around framework, hosting, and how content is edited will shape future operating costs more than the initial build experience.

Migrating from no-code to code is not a universal answer; for very small or short-lived sites, a builder may still be the right call. But as agentic tools like Claude Code mature, the break-even point where hand-coding becomes feasible for small teams is arguably moving lower, and stories like this one are useful data points for teams weighing a similar transition.