We're going to do it again, aren't we? We're going to take something simple and sensible ("write tests first", "small composable modules", etc.), give it a fancy complicated name ("Behavior-Constrained Implementation Lifecycle pattern", "Boundary-Scoped Processing Constructs pattern", etc.), and create an entire industry of consultants and experts selling books and enterprise coaching around it, each swearing they have the secret sauce and the right incantations.
The damn thing _talks_. You can just _speak_ to it. You can just ask it to do what you want.
Common business-oriented language (COBOL) is a high-level, English-like, compiled programming language.
COBOL's promise was that it was human-like text, so we wouldn't need programmers anymore.
The problem is that the average person doesn't know how what their actual problems are in sufficient detail to get a working solution. When you get down to breaking down that problem... you become a programmer.
The main lesson of COBOL is that it isn't the computer interface/language that necessitates a programmer.
Agreed, the programmer is not going away. However, I expect the role is going to change dramatically and the SDLC is going to have to adapt.
The programmer used to be the non-deterministic function creating the deterministic code. Along with that were multiple levels of testing from unit to acceptance in order to come to some close alignment with what the end-user actually intended as their project goals.
Now the programmer is using the probabilistic AI to generate definitive tests so that it can then non-deterministically create deterministic code to pass those tests. All to meet the indefinite project goals defined by the end-user. Or is there going to be another change in role where the project manager is the one using the AI to write the tests since they have a closer relationship to the customer and the programmer is the one responsible for wrangling the code to validate against those tests.
I predict the main democratization change is going to be how easy people can make plumbing that doesn't require--or at least not obviously require--such specificity or mental-modeling of the business domain.
For example, "Generate me some repeatable code to ask system X for data about Y, pull out value Z, and submit it to system W."
What happens when value Z is not >= X? What happens when value Z doesn't exist, but values J and K do? What should be done when...
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's going to be entertaining watching people go "I guess this is why we paid Bob all of that money all those years".
This seems needlessly nitpicky. Of course there will be edge cases, there always are in everything, so pointing out that edge cases may exist isn't helpful.
But it stands to reason that would be a huge shift if a system accessible to non-technical users could mostly handle those edge cases, even when "handle" means failing silently without taking the entire thing down, or simply raising them for human intervention via Slack message or email or a dashboard or something.
And Bob's still going to get paid a lot of money he'll just be doing stuff that's more useful than figuring out how negative numbers should be parsed in the ETL pipeline.
Hence the "not obviously require" bit: Some portion of those "simply gluing things together" will not actually be simple in truth. It'll work for a time until errors come to a head, then suddenly they'll need a professional to rip out the LLM asbestos and rework it properly.
That said, we should not underestimate the ability of companies to limp along with something broken and buggy, especially when they're being told there's no budget to fix it. (True even before LLMs.)
> The problem is that the average person doesn't know how what their actual problems are in sufficient detail to get a working solution. When you get down to breaking down that problem... you become a programmer.
Agreed. I've spent the last few years building an EMR at an actual agency and the idea that users know what they want and can articulate it to a degree that won't require ANY technical decisions is pure fantasy in my experience.
Right now with agents this is definitely going to continue to be the case. That said, at the end of the day engineers work with stakeholders to come up with a solution. I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future. I say this as someone who is excited but at the same time terrified of this future and what it means to our field.
I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased). I feel that current models are missing critical thinking skills that I feel you need to fully take on this role.
> I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future.
Yea, we'll see. I didn't think they'd come this far, but they have. Though, the cracks I still see seem to be more or less just how LLMs work.
It's really hard to accurately assess this given how much I have at stake.
> and he's far more qualified albeit biased
Yea, I think biased is an understatement. And he's working on a very specific product. How much can any one person really understand the entire industry or the scope of all it's work? He's worked at Google and OpenAi. Not exactly examples of your standard line-of-business software building.
> I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased).
If Opus 4.6 had 100M context, 100x higher throughput and latency, and 100x cheaper $/token, we'd be much closer. We'd still need to supervise it, but it could do a whole lot more just by virtue of more I/O.
Of course, whether scaling everything by 100x is possible given current techniques is arguable in itself.
There's a lifecycle to these hype runs, even when the thing behind the hype is plenty real. We're still in the phase where if you criticize AI you get told you don't "get it", so people are holding back some of their criticisms because they won't be received well. In this case, I'm not talking about the criticisms of the people standing back and taking shots at the tech, I'm talking about the criticisms of those heavily using it.
At some point, the dam will break, and it will become acceptable, if not fashionable, to talk about the real problems the tech is creating. Right now there is only the tiniest trickle from the folk who just don't care how they are perceived, but once it becomes acceptable it'll be a flood.
And there are going to be problems that come from using vast quantities of AI on a code base, especially of the form "created so much code my AI couldn't handle it anymore and neither could any of the humans involved". There's going to need to be a discussion on techniques on how to handle this. There's going to be characteristic problems and solutions.
The thing that really makes this hard to track though is the tech itself is moving faster than this cycle does. But if the exponential curve turns into a sigmoid curve, we're going to start hearing about these problems. If we just get a few more incremental improvements on what we have now, there absolutely are going to be patterns as to how to use AI and some very strong anti-patterns that we'll discover, and there will be consultants, and little companies that will specialize in fixing the problems, and people who propose buzzword solutions and give lots of talks about it and attract an annoying following online, and all that jazz. Unless AI proceeds to the point that it can completely replace a senior engineer from top to bottom, this is inevitable.
> And there are going to be problems that come from using vast quantities of AI on a code base, especially of the form "created so much code my AI couldn't handle it anymore and neither could any of the humans involved". There's going to need to be a discussion on techniques on how to handle this. There's going to be characteristic problems and solutions.
That's essentially the thing we are calling "cognitive debt".
Yeah, it's hard to even get started until we can go three months without a significant improvement in the AIs. Today's characteristic failures may not be 2027's characteristic failures. Example: Today I'm complaining that the AIs tend not to abstract as often as I'd like, but it's not hard to imagine it flipping until they're all architecture astronauts instead.
I'm not sure what this comment is addressing, I didn't find any fancy terms in TFA? If it's the title of the article itself, it seems simpler than "Things that help writing code effectively with AI agents."
> You can just ask it to do what you want.
Yes, but very clearly, as any HN thread on AI shows, different people are having VERY different outcomes with it. And I suspect it is largely the misconception that it will magically "just do what you want" that leads to poor outcomes.
The techniques mentioned -- coding, docs, modularity etc. -- may seem obvious now, but only recently did we realize that the primary principle emerging is "what's good for humans is good for agents." That was not at all obvious when we started off. It is doubly counter-intuitive given the foremost caveat has been "Don't anthropomorphize AI." I'm finding that is actually a decent way to understand these models. They are unnervingly like us, yet not like us.
All that to say, AI is essentially black magic and it is not yet obvious how to use it well for all people and all use-cases, so yes, more exposition is warranted.
I think the problem is that because it talks and understands English and more or less does whatever you ask, the affordences aren't particularly clear. That's actually one of the biggest problems with the chatbot model of AI — it has the same problems as the CLI, in that it's extremely flexible and powerful and you can do a lot with it and add a lot to it, but it's really not clear what way of interacting with it is more or less effective than any other, or what it can or can't do well.
I think attempts to document the most effective things to ask it to do in order to get to your overall goal, as well as what it is and is not good for, is probably worth doing. It would be bad if it turned into a whole consultant marketing OOP coaching clusterfuck. Yeah, but building some kind of community knowledge that these things aren't like, demigods, they have limitations and during things one way or the other with them can be better is probably a good thing. At the very least in theory would cut down some of the hype?
Wait: "write tests first" isn't simple and it's controversial. The benefits of TDD in pure-human development are debatable (I'd argue, in many cases, even dubious). But the equation changes with LLMs, because the cost of generating tests (and of keeping them up to date) plummets, and test cases are some of the easiest code to generate and reason about.
It's not as simple an observation as you're making it out to be.
yes. It sucks but I think it's good for the next generation of tech industry employees to watch this. It's happening quickly so you get a 10 year timeline compressed into a few years which makes it easier to follow and expose. The bloggers will come, then speakers, then there will be books. Consultants will latch on and start initiatives at their clients. Once enough large enterprises are sold on it, there will come associations and certification bodies so a company can say "we have X certified abc on staff". Manifestos will be released, version numbers will be incremented so there's a steady flow of work writing books, doing trainings, and getting the next level certified.
This is standard issue tech industry stuff (and it probably happens everywhere else too) but compressed into a tighter timeline so you don't have to wait a decade to see it unfold.
> create an entire industry of consultants and experts selling books and enterprise coaching around it
I suspect that this time around, management will expect the AI chatbot to explain these things to you, because who pays for anything anymore if the AI can do it all.
I don’t know, Simon has had a pretty sane and level head on his shoulders on this stuff. To my mind he’s earned the right to be taken seriously when talking about approaches he has found helpful.
I'm confused. Are you criticising the article, or simply expressing concern for what may happen?
The context suggests the former, but your criticisms bear no relation to the linked content. If anything, your edict to "write tests first" is even more succinctly expressed as "Red/green TDD".
But it is related, isn't it? I wrote "...each swearing they have the secret sauce and the right incantations...". Now compare it to ""Use red/green TDD" is a pleasingly succinct way to get better results out of a coding agent."
Doesn't it sound like the "right incantation"? That's the point of LLMs, they can understand (*) intent. You'd get the same result saying "do tdd" or "do the stuff everyone says they do but they don't, with the failing test first, don't remember the name, but you know what I'm saying innit?"
I'm perhaps uncharitable, and this article just happens to take the collateral damage, but I'm starting to see the same corruption that turned "At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective" into "Mandatory retro exactly once every fortnight, on a board with precisely three columns".
If all I have todo is ask the thing what I want, where is all the great new software? Why isn't everyone running fully bespoke operating systems by now?
While I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't make things more complicated by inventing fancy names, we also shouldn't pretend that software engineering has become super simple now. Building a great piece of software remains super hard to do and finding better techniques for it affords real study.
Your post is annoying me quite a bit because it's super unfair to the linked post. Simon Willison isn't trying to coin a new term, he's just trying to start a collection of useful patterns. "Agentic engineering" is just the obvious term for software engineering using agents. What would you call it, "just asking things"?
> If all I have todo is ask the thing what I want, where is all the great new software? Why isn't everyone running fully bespoke operating systems by now?
I was speaking from a software engineer's point of view, in the context of the article, where one of the "agentic" patterns is ... test-driven development? Which you summon out of the agent by saying ... "Do test-driven development", more or less?
> What would you call it, "just asking things"?
I'd call it software engineering. What makes good software didn't suddenly change, and there's fundamentally no secret sauce to getting an agent to do it. If I think a class does too many things, then I tell the agent "This class does too many things, move X and Y methods into a new class".
At this point what is happening that is not at our expense? Hell if I could be a grifter and start another .ai company honestly I would. I guess I am just not that talented.
> The damn thing _talks_. You can just _speak_ to it. You can just ask it to do what you want
I mean - yeah. So do humans. But it turns out that that a lot of humans require considerable process to productively organize too. A pet thesis of mine is that we are just (re-) discovering the usefulness of process and protocol.
People are rushing to be the first one to coin something and hit it big. Imagine the amount of $$$ you could get for being an "expert ai consultant" in this space.
There was already another attempt at agentic patterns earlier:
They won't have a decent response, this is the Internet after all. I really enjoyed it thanks for writing it and I'll take a lot of it onboard. I think everyone will have their own software stack and AIs designed perfectly for them to do their work in the future.
Secondly: this is a temporary vacuum state. We're only needed to bridge the gap.
I wouldn't be trying to be a consultant, I would be scurrying to ensure we have access to these tools once they're industrial. A "$5M button" to create any business function won't be within the reach of labor capital, but it will be for financial capital. That's the world we're headed to.
Simon, if you're reading this, I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts on how to effectively conduct code reviews in a world where "code is cheap".
One of the biggest struggles I have on my team is coworkers straight up vibing parts of the code and not understanding or guiding the architecture of subsystems. Or at least, not writing code in a way that is meant to be understood by others.
Then when I go through the code and provide extensive feedback (mostly architectural and highlighting odd inconsistencies with the code additions) I'm met with much pushback because "it works, why change it"? Not to mention the sheer size of prs ballooning in recent months.
The end result is me being the bottleneck because I can't keep up with the "pace" of code being generated, and feeling a lot of discomfort and pressure to lower my standards.
I've thought about using a code review agent to review and act as me in proxy, but not being able to control the exact output worries me. And I don't like the lack of human touch it provides. Maybe someone has advice on a humane way to handle this problem.
This is genuinely one of the most interesting questions right now. I don't have solid answers yet, and I'm very keen to learn what people are finding works.
If you accelerate the pace of code creation it inevitably creates bottlenecks elsewhere. Code review is by far the biggest of those right now.
There may be an argument for leaning less on code review. When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
But I don't want to lower my standards! I want the code I'm producing with coding agents to be better than the code I would produce without them.
There are some aspects of code review that you cannot skimp on. Things like coding standards may not matter as much, but security review will never be optional.
I've recently been wondering what we can learn from security teams at large companies. Once you have dozens or hundreds of teams shipping features at the same time - teams with varying levels of experience - you can no longer trust those teams not to make mistakes. I expect that the same strategies used by security teams at Facebook/Google-scale organizations could now be relevant to smaller organizations where coding agents are responsible for increasing amounts of code.
Generally though I think this is very much an unsolved problem. I hope to document the effective patterns for this as they emerge.
I think Martin Fowler's "Refactoring" might give a bit of insight here. One of my take-aways after reading that book is that the specific implementation of a function is not very important if you have tests. He argues that it can sometimes be easier to completely re-write a function than to take the time to understand it - as long as you can validate that your re-write performs the same way. This mindset lines up pretty closely with how I've been using LLMs.
If that's true, then I would think the emphasis in code review should be more on test quality and verifying that the spec is captured accurately, and as you suggest, the actual implementation is less important.
This is why I've been pushing back on the "just have the AI generate the tests!" mentality. Sure, let it help you, but those tests are the guarantee of quality and fit for purpose. If you vibe code them, how the hell do you know if it even does what you think it does?
You should be planning out the tests to properly exercise the spec, and ensuring those tests actually do what the spec requires. AI can suggest more tests (but be careful here, too, because a ballooned test suite slows down CICD), but it should never be in charge of them completely.
That's my experience with agentic development so far, a lot of extra time goes into testing.
Problem is, the way I've been trained to test isn't exactly antagonistic. QA does that kind of thing. Programmers writing tests are generally rather doing spot checks that only make sense if the code is generally understood and trustworthy. Code LLMs produce is usually broken in subtle, hard to spot ways.
Counter-point, developers that get used to not caring about function implementation, are going to culturally also not care as much about test implementation, making this proposed ideal impossible.
> There may be an argument for leaning less on code review. When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
Agree with everything else you said except this. In my opinion, this assumes code becomes more like a consumable as code-production costs reduce. But I don't think that's the case. Incorrect, but not visibly incorrect, code will sit in place for years.
> Agree with everything else you said except this.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with what I said there myself!
> Incorrect, but not visibly incorrect, code will sit in place for years.
If you let incorrect code sit in place for years I think that suggests a gap in your wider process somewhere.
I'm still trying to figure out what closing those gaps looks like.
The StrongDM pattern is interesting - having an ongoing swarm of testing agents which hammer away at a staging cluster trying different things and noting stuff that breaks. Effectively an agent-driven QA team.
I'm not going to add that to the guide until I've heard it working for other teams and experienced it myself though!
This kinda gets into the idea of AIs as droids right?
So, you have a code writing droid that is aligned towards writing good clean code that humans can read. Then you have an implementation droid that goes into actually launching and running the code and is aligned with business needs and expenses. And you have a QA droid that stress tests the code and is aligned with the hacker mindset and is just slightly evil, so to speak.
Each droid is working together to make good code, but also are independent and adversarial in the day to day.
It assumes that bugs are rare and easy to fix. A look at Claude Code's issue tracker (https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues) tells you that this is not so. Your product could be perpetually broken, lurching from one vibe coded bug to another.
> When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
I don't care how cheap it is to replace the incorrect code when it's modifying my bank account or keeping my lights on.
One model I've seen is moving the review stage to the designs, not the code itself.
I.e. have a `planning/designs/unbuilt/...` folder that contains markdown descriptions of features/changes that would have gotten a PR. Now do the review at the design level.
Agent based code reviews is what you want. But you have to do set it up with really good context about what is wanted. You then review the reviews, keep improving the context it is working with. Make sure it's put into everyone's global context they work with as well.
Weirdly this article doesn't really talk about the main agentic pattern
- Plan (really important to start with a plan before code changes). iteratively build a plan to implement something. You can also have a colelctive review of the plan, make sure its what you want and there is guidance about how it should implement in terms of architecture (should also be pulling on pre existing context about your architecure /ccoding standards), what testing should be built. Make sure the agent reviews the plan, ask the agent to make suggestions and ask questions
- Execute. Make the agent (or multiple agents) execute on the plan
- Test / Fix cycle
- Code Review / Refactor
- Generate Test Guidance for QA
Then your deliverables are Code / Feature context documentation / Test Guidance + evolving your global/project context
Maintaining a high-quality requirements / specification document for large features prior to implementation, and then referencing it in "plan mode" prompts, feels like consensus best practice at this stage.
However a thing I'm finding quite valuable in my own workflows, but haven't seen much discussion of, is spending meaningful time with AI doing meta-planning of that document. For example, I'll spend many sessions partnered with AI just iterating on the draft document, asking it to think through details, play contrarian, surface alternatives, poke holes, identify points of confusion, etc. It's been so helpful for rapidly exploring a design space, and I frequently find it makes suggestions that are genuinely surprising or change my perspective about what we should build.
I feel like I know we're "done" when I thoroughly understand it, a fresh AI instance seems to really understand it (as evaluated by interrogating it), and neither of us can find anything meaningful to improve. At that point we move to implementation, and the actual code writing falls out pretty seamlessly. Plus, there's a high quality requirements document as a long-lived artifact.
Obviously this is a heavyweight process, but is suited for my domain and work.
ETA one additional practice: if the agent gets confused during implementation or otherwise, I find it's almost always due to a latent confusion about the requirements. Ask the agent why it did a thing, figure out how to clarify in the requirements, and try again from the top rather than putting effort into steering the current session.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think there needs to be a whole spec & documentation process before plan mode.
There is alternative thought leadership that the waterfall approach for building out projects is not the right Agentic pattern[1].
Planning itself can be such an intensive process where you're designing and figuring out the specs on the fly in a focused manner for the thing the agent will actually develop next. Not sure how useful it is to go beyond this in terms of specs that live outside of the Agentic loop for what should be developed now and next.
I've evolved my own process, originally from plain Claude Code to Claude Code with heavy spec integrated capabilities. However, that became a burden for me: a lot of contextual drift in those documents and then self managing & orchestrating of Claude Code over those documents. I've since reoriented myself to base Claude Code with a fairly high-level effort specific to ad-hoc planning sessions. Sometimes the plans will revolve around specific GitHub issues or feature requests in the ticketing system, but that's about it.
I think there's a Danger Zone when planning is light-weight and iterative, and code is cheap, but reviewing code is expensive: it leads to a kind of local hill-climbing.
Suppose you iterate through many sessions of lightweight planning, implementation, and code review. It _feels_ high velocity, you're cranking through the feature, but you've also invested a lot of your time and energy (planning isn't free, and code review and fit-for-purpose checks, in particular, are expensive). As often happens -- with or without AI -- you get towards the end and realize: there might have been a fundamentally better approach to take.
The tradeoff of that apparent velocity is that _now_ course correction is much more challenging.
Those ephemeral plans are now gone. The effort you put into providing context within those plans is gone.
You have an locally optimal solution, but you don't have a great way of expressing how to start over from scratch pointed in a slightly different direction.
I think that part can be really valuable, because given a sufficiently specific arrow, the AI can just rip.
Whether it's worth the effort, I suppose, depends on how high-conviction you are on your original chosen approach.
It does 2 things that are very important, 1: reviewing should not be done last, but during the process and 2: plans should result into verifyable specs, preferably in a natural language so you can avoid locking yourself into specific implementation details (the "how") too early.
Yea, a big part of my planning has included what verification steps will be necessary along the way or at the end. No plan gets executed without that and I often ask for specific focus on this aspect in plan mode.
yeah, spending a bunch of time with the plan is really worthwhile, nearly all aspects of the plan are worth a bunch of attention. Getting it to think about edge cases and all the scenarios for testing is really worthwhile, what can be automated, what manual testing should be done. It's often working through testing scenarios that I often see gaps in the plan.
> I'm met with much pushback because "it works, why change it"?
This is an educational problem, and is unlikely to be easy to fix in your team (though I might be wrong). I would suggest to change to a team or company with a culture that values being able to reason about one’s software.
"It works, why change it?" is a horrible attitude but is an organizational and interpersonal problem, not a technical one. They're only 1/3 of the way done according to Kent Beck.¹
There are plenty of orgs using AI who still care about architecture and having easily human-readable, human-maintainable code. Maybe that's becoming an anachronism, and those firms will go the way of the Brontosaurus. Maybe it will be a competitive advantage. Who knows?
The way I am handing this - investing heavily in static and dynamic analysis aspects.
- A lot more linting rules than ever before, also custom rule sets that do more org and project level validations.
- Harder types enforcement in type optional languages , Stronger and deeper typing in all of them .
- beyond unit tests - test quality coverage tooling like mutation testing(stryker) and property based testing (quickcheck) if you can go that precise
- much more dx scripts and build harnesses that are specific to org and repo practices that usually junior/new devs learn over time
- On dynamic side , per pull requests environments with e2e tests that agents can validate against and iterate when things don’t work.
- documentation generation and skill curation. After doing a batch of pull requests reviews I will spend time in seeing where the gaps are in repo skills and agents.
All this becomes pre-commit heavy, and laptops cannot keep up in monorepos, so we ended up doing more remote containers on beefy machines and investing and also task caching (nx/turborepo have this )
Reviews (agentic or human) have their uses , but doing this with reviews is just high latency, inefficient and also tends to miss things and we become the bottleneck.
Earlier the coder(human or agent) gets repeatable consistent feedback it is better
We make the creator of the PR responsible for the code. Meaning they must understand it.
Also, we only allow engineers to commit (agent generated) code. Designers just come up with suggestions, engineers take it and ensure it fits our architecture.
We do have a huge codebase. We are teaching Claude Code with CLAUDE.md's and now also <feature>.spec.md (often a summary of the implementation plan).
Can you document the hard architectural requirements of your codebase? And keep it up to date? If you can do that, you can force your coworkers to always use those requirements during their prompting /planning for their implementations and you can feed that to an agent and have that review the code.
But more proactively, if people aren't going to write their own code, I think there needs to be a review process around their prompts, before they generate any code at all. Make this a formal process, generate the task list you're going to feed to your LLM, write a spec, and that should be reviewed. This is not a substitute for code reviews, but it tends to ensure that there are only nitpick issues left, not major violations of how the system is intended to be architected.
I’m running into this problem as well with juniors slinging code that takes me a very long time to understand and review. I’m iterating on an AGENTS.md file to share with them because they aren’t going to stop using AI and I’m a little tied of always saying the same things (Claude loves to mock everything and assert that spies were called X times with Y arguments which is a great recipe for brittle tests, for example)
I know they won’t stop using AI so giving them a directives file that I’ve tried out might at least increase the quality of the output and lower my reviewing burden.
Code review should be mandatory and reviewers should ask big PRs to be broken up, and its submitters to be able to defend every line of code. For when the computer is generating the code, the most important duty of the submitter is to vouch for it. To do otherwise creates the bad incentive of making others do all your QA, and nobody is going to be rewarded for that.
Yeah, I think that's one of the biggest anti-patterns right now: dumping thousands of lines of agent-generated code on your team to review, which effectively delegates the real work to other people.
> Code review should be mandatory and reviewers should ask big PRs to be broken up
Always, even before all this madness. It sounds more like a function of these teams CR process rather than agents writing the code. Sometimes super large prs are necessary and I've always requested a 30 minute meeting to discuss.
I don't see this as an issue, just noise. Reduce the PR footprint. If not possible meet with the engineer(s)
Code review is now a bit like Brandolini's law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." You ultimately need a lot of buy in to spend more than 5 mins on something that took 5 seconds to produce.
I use AI in my workflow mostly for simple boilerplate, or to troubleshoot issues/docs.
I've dipped into agentic work now and again, but never been very impressed with the output (well, that there is any functioning output is insanely impressive, but it isn't code I want to be on the hook for complaining).
I hear a lot of people saying the same, but similarly a bunch of people I respect saying they barely write code anymore. It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
Anyway, really looking forward to trying some if these patterns as the book develops to see if that makes a difference. Understanding how other peopke really use these tools is a big gap for me.
One thing I rarely see mentioned is that often creating code by hand is simply faster (at least for me) than using AI. Creating a plan for AI, waiting for execution, verifying, prompting again etc. can take more time than just doing it on my own with a plan in my head (and maybe some notes). Creating something from scratch or doing advanced refactoring is almost always faster with AI, but most of my daily tasks are bugs or features that are 10% coding and 90% knowing how to do it.
I think this is the main point where many people’s work differs. Most of my work I know roughly what needs changing and how things are structured but I jump between codebases often enough that I can’t always remember the exact classes/functions where changes are needed. But I can vaguely gesture at those specific changes that need to be made and have the AI find the places that need changing and then I can review the result.
I rarely get the luxury of working in a single codebase for a long enough period of time to get so familiar with it that I can jump to particular functions without much thought. That means AI is usually a better starting point than me fumbling around trying to find what I think exists but I don’t know where it is.
I've heard people say that these coding agents are just tools and don't replace the thinking. That's fine but the problem for me is that the act of coding is when I do my thinking!
I'm thinking about how to solve the problem and how to express it in the programming language such that it is easy to maintain. Getting someone/something else to do that doesn't help me.
But different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Yes, it's often faster if you sit around waiting. What I will do instead is prompt the AI to create various plans, do other stuff while they do, review and approve the plans, do other stuff while multiple plans are being implemented, and then review and revise the output.
And I have the AI deal with "knowing how to do it" as well. Often it's slower to have it do enough research to know how to do it, but my time is more expensive than Claude's time, and so as long as I'm not sitting around waiting it's a net win.
I do this too, but then you need some method to handle it, because now you have to read and test and verify multiple work streams. It can become overwhelming. In the past week I had the following problems from parallel agents:
Gemini running an benchmark- everything ran smoothly for an hour. But on verification it had hallucinated the model used for judging, invalidating the whole run.
Another task used Opus and I manually specified the model to use. It still used the wrong model.
This type of hallucination has happened to me at least 4-5 times in the past fortnight using opus 4.6 and gemini-3.1-pro. GLM-5 does not seem to hallucinate so much.
So if you are not actively monitoring your agent and making the corrections, you need something else that is.
You need a harness, yes, and you need quality gates the agent can't mess with, and that just kicks the work back with a stern message to fix the problems. Otherwise you're wasting your time reviewing incomplete work.
Glancing at what it's doing is part of your multitasking rounds.
Also instead of just prompting, having it write a quick summary of exactly what it will do where the AI writes a plan including class names branch names file locations specific tests etc. is helpful before I hit go, since the code outline is smaller and quicker to correct.
That takes more wall clock time per agent, but gets better results, so fewer redo steps.
>And I have the AI deal with "knowing how to do it" as well. Often it's slower to have it do enough research to know how to do it
This is exactly the sort of future I'm afraid of. Where the people who are ostensibly hired to know how stuff works, out source that understanding to their LLMs. If you don't know how the system works while building, what are you going to when it breaks? Continue to throw your LLM at it? At what point do you just outsource your entire brain?
For me it _can_ be faster to code than to instruct but it takes me significantly less effort to write the prompt than the actual code. So a few hours of concentrates coding leave me completely drained of energy while after a few hours with the agents I still have a lot of mental energy. That's the huge difference for me and I don't want to go back.
Thats interesting. While i do get mentally tired after a session of focused coding, i feel like i have accomplished something. Using AI for coding feels similar to spending hours doom scrolling reels. Less engaging but Im drained as hell at the end.
My way of phrasing this: I need to activate my personal transformers on my inner embeddings space to really figure what is it that I truly want to
write.
I delegate to agents what I hate doing, e.g. when creating a SaaS web app, the last thing I want to waste my time on is the landing page with about/pricing/login and Stripe integration frontend/backend - I'll just tell Claude Code (with Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8 running locally on RTX Pro 6000) to make all this basic stuff for me so that I can focus on the actual core of the app. It then churns for half an hour, spews out the first version where I need to spend another half an hour to fix bugs by pointing errors to Claude Code and then in 1 hour it's all done. I can also tell it to avoid all the node.js garbage and do it all in plain HTML/JS/CSS.
But can you mentally "keep hold" (for lack of a better term) of those tasks that are getting executed in parallel? Honestly asking.
Because, after they're done/have finished executing, I guess you still have to "check" their output, integrate their results into the bigger project they're (supposedly) part of etc, and for me the context-switching required to do all that is mentally taxing. But maybe this only happens because my brain is not young enough, that's why I'm asking.
I think the difference is that you're applying a standard of correctness or personal understanding of the code you're pushing that is being relaxed in the "agentic workflows"
I have the AI integrate their results themselves. That's if anything one of the things they do best. I also have them do reviews and test their own work first before I check it, and that usually makes the remaining verification fairly quick and painless.
I’m not OP but every time I post a comment with this sentiment I get told “the latest models are what you need”. If every 3 months you are saying “it’s ready as long as you use the latest model”, then it wasn’t ready 3 months ago and it’s not likely to be ready now.
To answer your question, I’ve tried both Claude code and Antigravity in the last 2 weeks and I’m still finding them struggling. AG with Gemini regularly gets stuck on simple issues and loops until I run out of requests, and Claude still just regularly goes on wild tangents not actually solving the problem.
I don’t think that’s true. Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 in Cursor have marked the big shift for me. Before that, agentic development mostly made me want to just do it myself, because it was getting stuck or going on tangents.
I think it can (and is) shifting very rapidly. Everyone is different, and I’m sure models are better at different types of work (or styles of working), but it doesn’t take much to make it too frustrating to use. Which also means it doesn’t take much to make it super useful.
> I don’t think that’s true. Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 in Cursor.
Opus 4.6 has been out for less than a month. If it was a big shift surely we'd see a massive difference over 4.5 which was november. I think this proves the point, you're not seeing seisimic shifts every 3 months and you're not even clear about which model was the fix.
> I think it can (and is) shifting very rapidly.
Shifting, maybe. But shuffling deck chairs every 3 months.
It depends on what you're handling. Frontend (not css), swagger, mundane CRUD is where it shines. Something more complex that need a bit harder calculation usually make the agents struggling.
Especially good to navigate the code if you're unfamiliar with it (the code). If you have known the code for good, you'll find it's usually faster to debug and code by yourself.
I thought this too and then I discovered plan mode. If you just prompt agent mode it will be terrible, but coming up with a plan first has really made a big difference and I rarely write code at all now
Have you tried it with something like OpenSpec? Strangely, taking the time to lay out the steps in a large task helps immensely. It's the difference between the behavior you describe and just letting it run productively for segments of ten or fifteen minutes.
Agree, it’s strange, I will just assume that the people who say this are building react apps. I still have so much ”certainly, I should not do this in a completely insane way, let me fix that” … -400+2. It’s not always, and it is better than it was, but that’s it.
At this point though, after Claude C Compiler, you've got to give us more details to better understand the dichotomy. What do you consider simple issues?
Perfect example. You mean the C compiler that literally failed to compile a hello world [0] (which was given in it's readme)?
> What do you consider simple issues?
Hallucinating APIs for well documented libraries/interfaces, ignoring explicit instructions for how to do things, and making very simple logic errors in 30-100 line scripts.
As an example, I asked Claude code to help me with a Roblox game last weekend, and specifically asked it to "create a shop GUI for <X> which scales with the UI, and opens when you press E next to the character". It proceeded to create a GUI with absolute sizings, get stuck on an API hallucination for handling input, and also, when I got it unstuck, it didn't actually work.
Claude C compiler is 100k LOC that doesn’t do anything useful, and cost $20k plus the cost of an expert engineer creating a custom harness and babysitting it.
But the most important thing is that they were reverse engineering gcc by using it as an oracle. And it had gcc and thousands of other c compilers in its training set.
So if you are a large corporation looking to copy GPL code so that you can use it without worrying about the license, and the project you want to copy is a text transformer with a rigorously defined set of inputs and outputs, have at it.
Pretty recently (a couple weeks ago). I give agentic workflows a go every couple of weeks or so.
I should say, I don't find them abysmal, but I tend to work in codebases where I understand them, and the patterns really well. The use cases I've tried so far, do sort of work, just not yet at least, faster than I'm able to actual write the code myself.
> My experience with what coding assistants are good for shifted from:
> smart autocomplete -> targeted changes/additions -> full engineering
Define "full engineering". Because if you say "full engineering" I would expect the agent to get some expected product output details as input and produce all by itself the right implementation for the context (i.e. company) it lives in.
The "you just verify" part can take indeed a lot of steering and hand-holding to get the right implementation for the current company/department/project context. Otherwise you might be just generating tech debt at scale.
> I've dipped into agentic work now and again, but never been very impressed with the output (well, that there is any functioning output is insanely impressive, but it isn't code I want to be on the hook for complaining).
> I hear a lot of people saying the same, but similarly a bunch of people I respect saying they barely write code anymore. It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
It squares up just fine.
You ever read a blog post or comment and think "Yeah, this is definitely AI generated"? If you can recognise it, would you accept a blog post, reviewed by you, for your own blog/site?
I won't; I'll think "eww" and rewrite.
The developers with good AI experiences don't get the same "eww" feeling when reading AI-generated code. The developers with poor AI experiences get that "eww" feeling all the time when reviewing AI code and decide not to accept the code.
I also will rewrite both text and code created by Gen AI. I've found the best workflow for me is not to refine what I've written, but instead to use it to help me get over humps and/or crank through some of the drudgery. And then I go back and edit, fixing any issues I spot and to reshape it to be in my own voice.
> It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
In my experience, this heavily depends on the task, and there's a massive chasm between tasks where it's a good and bad fit. I can definitely imagine people working only on one side of this chasm and being perplexed by the other side.
My experience is that the first iteration output from a single agent is not what I want to be on the hook for. What squares it for me with "not writing code anymore" is the iterative process to improve outputs:
1) Having review loops between agents (spawn separate "reviewer" agents) and clear tests / eval criteria improved results quite a bit for me.
2) Reviewing manually and giving instructions for improvements is necessary to have code I can own
Is that… actually faster than just doing it yourself, tho? Like, “I could write the right thing, or I could have this robot write the wrong thing and then nag it til it corrects itself” seems to suggest a fairly obvious choice.
I’ve yet to see these things do well on anything but trivial boilerplate.
Think of it like installing Linux. The first time it's absolutely not worth it from a time perspective. But after you've installed it once, you can reuse that installation, and eventually it makes sense and becomes second nature. Eventually that time investment pays dividends. Just like Linux tho, no one's going to force to you to install it and you'll probably go on to have a fine career without ever having touched the stuff.
I was in the same boat as you until I saw DHH post about how he’s changed his use of agents. In his talk with Lex Fridman his approach was similar to mine and it really felt like a kernel of sanity amongst the hype. So when he said he’s changed his approach I had another look. I’m using agents (Claude code) every day now. I still write code every day too. (So does Dax Raad from OpenCode to throw a bit more weight behind this stance). I’m not convinced the models can own a production code base and that therefore engineers need to maintain their skills sufficiently to be responsible. I find agents helpful for a lot of stuff, usually heavily patterned code with a lot of prior art. I find CC consistently sucks at writing polars code. I honestly don’t enjoy using agents at all and I don’t think anyone can honestly claim they know how this is going to shake out. But I feel by using the tools myself I have a much stronger sense of reality amongst the hype.
I strongly agree with that last statement—I hate using agents because their code smells awful even if it works. But I have to use them now because otherwise I’m going to wake up one day and be 100% obsolete and never even notice how it happened.
I still write code but do not push everything off to the agent. Try my best to write small tasks. ~20% of the time I have to get in there. If someone says they're absolutely not writing a line of code they must have amazing guardrails.
>It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
I don’t think you have to square them because those sentiments are coming from different people. They are also coming from people at different points along the adoption curve. If you are struggling and you see other people struggling at the beginning of the adoption curve it can be quite difficult difficult to understand someone who is further along and does not appear to be struggling.
I think a lot of folks who have struggled with these tools do so because both critics and boosters create unrealistic expectations.
What I recommend is you keep trying. This is a new skill set. It is a different skill set. Which other skills that existed in the past remain necessary is not known.
I've experimented with agentic coding/engineering a lot recently. My observation is that software that is easily tested are perfect for this sort of agentic loop.
In one of my experiments I had the simple goal of "making Linux binaries smaller to download using better compression" [1]. Compression is perfect for this. Easily validated (binary -> compress -> decompress -> binary) so each iteration should make a dent otherwise the attempt is thrown out.
Lessons I learned from my attempts:
- Do not micro-manage. AI is probably good at coming up with ideas and does not need your input too much
- Test harness is everything, if you don't have a way of validating the work, the loop will go stray
- Let the iterations experiment. Let AI explore ideas and break things in its experiment. The iteration might take longer but those experiments are valuable for the next iteration
- Keep some .md files as scratch pad in between sessions so each iteration in the loop can learn from previous experiments and attempts
You have to have really good tests as it fucks up in strange ways people don't (because I think experienced programmers run loops in their brain as they code)
Good news - agents are good at open ended adding new tests and finding bugs. Do that. Also do unit tests and playwright. Testing everything via web driving seems insane pre agents but now its more than doable.
"Test harness is everything, if you don't have a way of validating the work, the loop will go stray"
This is the most important piece to using AI coding agents. They are truly magical machines that can make easy work of a large number of development, general purpose computing, and data collection tasks, but without deterministic and executable checks and tests, you can't guarantee anything from one iteration of the loop to the next.
the .md scratch pad point is underrated, and the format matters more than people realize.
summaries ("tried X, tried Y, settled on Z") are better than nothing, but the next iteration can mostly reconstruct them from test results anyway. what's actually irreplaceable is the constraint log: "approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms on target hardware" means the agent doesn't re-propose B the next session. without it, every iteration rediscovers the same dead ends.
ended up splitting it into decisions.md and rejections.md. counter-intuitively, rejections.md turned out to be the more useful file. the decisions are visible in the code. the rejections are invisible — and invisible constraints are exactly what agents repeatedly violate.
This is the underrated insight in the whole thread. 'Approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms' is the kind of context that saves hours of re-exploration every new session.
The problem I kept hitting was that flat markdown constraint logs don't scale past ~50 entries. The agent has to re-read the entire log to know what was already tried, which eats context window and slows generation. And once you have multiple agents in parallel, each maintaining their own constraint log, you get drift - agent A rejects approach B, agent C re-proposes it because it never saw agent A's log.
What worked for me was moving constraint logs to append-only log blocks that agents query through MCP rather than re-read as prose. I've been using ctlsurf for this - the agent appends 'approach B rejected, latency > N ms' to a log block, and any agent can query query_log(action='approach_rejected') to see what's been ruled out. State store handles 'which modules are claimed' as a key-value lookup.
Structured queries mean agents don't re-read the whole history - they ask specific questions about what's been tried.
The test harness point is the one that really sticks for me too. We've been using agentic loops for browser automation work, and the domain has a natural validation signal: either the browser session behaves the way a real user would, or it doesn't. That binary feedback closes the loop really cleanly.
The tricky part in our case is that "behaves correctly" has two layers - functional (did it navigate correctly?) and behavioral (does it look human to detection systems?). Agents are fine with the first layer but have no intuition for the second. Injecting behavioral validation into the loop was the thing that actually made it useful.
The .md scratch pad between sessions is underrated. We ended up formalizing it into a short decisions log - not a summary of what happened, just the non-obvious choices and why. The difference between "we tried X" and "we tried X, it failed because Y, so we use Z instead" is huge for the next session.
browser automation at scale - specifically the problem of running many isolated browser sessions that each look like distinct, real users to detection systems. the behavioral validation layer I mentioned is the part that makes agentic loops actually useful for this: the agent needs to know not just "did the task succeed" but "did it succeed without triggering signals that would get the session flagged".
the interesting engineering problem is that the two feedback loops run on different timescales - functional feedback is immediate (did the click work?) but behavioral feedback is lagged and probabilistic (the session might get flagged 10 requests from now based on something that happened 5 requests ago). teaching an agent to reason about that second loop is the unsolved part.
fair question. i shared a technical experience because it was directly relevant to the test harness discussion - the behavioral vs functional validation layers, the lagged feedback problem. if that reads as promotion, i get it, but it wasn't the intent. the engineering problem is real regardless of who's solving it.
I wish there was a little more color in the Testing and QA section. While I agree with this:
> A comprehensive test suite is by far the most effective way to keep those features working.
there is no mention at all about LLMs' tendency to write tautological tests--tests that pass because they are defined to pass. Or, tests that are not at all relevant or useful, and are ultimately noise in the codebase wasting cycles on every CI run. Sometimes to pass the tests the model might even hardcode a value in a unit test itself!
IMO this section is a great place to show how we as humans can guide the LLM toward a rigorous test suite, rather than one that has a lot of "coverage" but doesn't actually provide sound guarantees about behavior.
Do you have an example of the tautological tests you're referring to? What comes to mind to me is genuinely logically tautological tests, like "assert(true || expectedResult == actualResult)" which is a mistake I don't even expect modern AI coding tools to make. But I suspect you're talking about a subtler type of test which at first glance appears useful but actually isn't.
I do see agents pop out tests that look like this occasionally:
it { expect(classroom).to have_many(:students) }
If I catch them I tell them not to and they remove it again, but a few do end up slipping through.
I'm not sure that they're particularly harmful any more though. It used to be that they added extra weight to your test suite, meaning when you make changes you have to update pointless tests.
But if the agent is updating the pointless tests for you I can afford a little bit of unnecessary testing bloat.
I don’t love tests like that either, but I’ve seen a lot of them (long before the generative AI era) and heard reasonable people make arguments in favor of them.
Admittedly, in the absence of halfway competent static type checking, it does seem like a good way to prevent what would be a very bad regression. It doesn’t seem worse than tests which check that a certain property is non-null (when that’s a vital business requirement and you’re using a language without a competent type system).
I don’t have examples but I have an LLM driven project with like…2500 tests and I regularly need to prune:
* no-op tests
* unit tests labeled as integration tests
* skipped tests set to skip because they were failing and the agent didn’t want to fix them
* tests that can never fail
Probably at any given time the tests are 2-4% broken. I’d say about 10% of one-shot tests are bogus if you’re just working w spec + chat and don’t have extra testing harnesses.
For example, you might write a concurrency test, and the agent will cheerfully remove the concurrency and announce that it passes. They get so hung up on making things work in a narrow sense that they lose track of the purpose.
Yes. And, a bad test -- that passes because it's defined to pass -- is _much worse_ than no test at all. It makes you think an edge case is "covered" with a meaningful check.
Worse: once you have one "bad apple" in your pile of tests, it decreases trust in the _whole batch of tests_. Each time a test passes, you have to think if it's a bad test...
That's where mutation testing becomes even more valuable. If the test still passes after the code has been mutated, then you may want to look deeper, because it's a sign that the test is not good.
This seems it should be very easy to validate. Force the AI to make minimal changes to the code under test, which makes a single (or as few as possible) test fail as a result. If it can't make a test fail at all, it should be useless.
Agreed, and that's why I think adding some example prompts and ideas to the Testing section would be helpful. A vanilla-prompted LLM, in my experience, is very unreliable at adding tests that fail when the changes are reverted.
Many times I've observed that the tests added by the model simply pass as part of the changes, but still pass even when those changes are no longer applied.
This is essentially dual to the idea behind mutation testing, and should be trivial to do with a mutation testing framework in place (track whether a given test catches mutants, or more sophisticated: whether it catches the exact same mutants as some other test).
> we as humans can guide the LLM toward a rigorous test suite, rather than one that has a lot of "coverage" but doesn't actually provide sound guarantees about behavior.
I have a hard enough time getting humans to write tests like this…
These lessons get obliterated with every new LLM generation. Like how LangChain started on stupid models with small context, creating some crazy architecture around it to bypass their limitations that got completely obliterated when GPT-3.5 was released, yet people still use it and overcomplicate things. Rather look at where the puck is going, we might soon not need more than a single agent to do everything given context size keeps increasing, agent can use more tools and we might get some in-call context cleanup at some point as well that would allow an agent to spin forever instead of calling subagents due to context size limitations.
I'm trying to include patterns that work independently of model releases.
It's tricky though. Take "red/green TDD" for example - it's perfectly possible that models will start defaulting to doing that anyway pretty soon.
In that case it's only three words so it doesn't feel hugely wasteful if it turns out not to be necessary - and there's still value in understanding what it means even if you no longer have to explicitly tell the agents to do it.
The biggest takeaway for me from LLMs is that the implementation details no longer. If you have a sufficiently detailed tests and requirements, there is going to be a robot that will roll the dice until it fits the tests and requirements.
I see a lot of people complaining that every day there are 100 new frameworks for “agent teams”, prompting styles, workflows, and everyone insists theirs is the best for one reason or another. It reminds me a lot of early software engineering: every team had its own way of doing things, we experimented with tons of methodologies (waterfall, agile, etc.), and over time a few patterns became widely adopted (scrum, PM roles, architects, tickets, rituals). It feels like we’re in that same messy exploration phase right now.
And actually, these tools actually work, , because 99% of people still don’t really know how to prompt agents well and end up doing things like “pls fix this, it’s not working”.
One thing that worked well for us was going back to how a human team would approach it: write a product spec first (expected behavior, constraints, acceptance criteria, etc), use AI to refine that spec, and only then hand it to an opinionated flow of agents that reflect a human team to implement.
The "human in the loop at key checkpoints" pattern has been the most practically useful for us. We found that giving the agent full autonomy end-to-end produces subtly broken code that passes tests but violates implicit invariants you never thought to write down. Short loops with a human sanity check at decision forks catches that class of failure early.
The thing I keep wrestling with is where exactly to place those checkpoints. Too frequent and you've just built a slow pair programmer. Too infrequent and you're doing expensive archaeology to figure out where it went sideways. We've landed on "before any irreversible action" as a useful heuristic, but that requires the agent to have some model of what's irreversible, which is its own can of worms.
Has anyone found a principled way to communicate implicit codebase conventions to an agent beyond just dumping a CLAUDE.md or similar file? We've tried encoding constraints as linter rules but that only catches surface stuff, not architectural intent.
A lot of this is just things that high-functioning human teams were already doing: automate testing, explain your PRs to guide reviewers, demoing work, not just throwing bad code over the wall during code review, etc.
There's a recurring theme in these agentic engineering threads that is worth calling out: the lessons, are almost always stated as universal – but are deeply dependent on team size, code base maturity, test coverage, and risk tolerance. What gets presented as a “win” for a well instrumented backend service could easily guide those working on UI-heavy or old code down the wrong path. The art of this might be less about discovering the correct pattern, and more about truthfully declaring when a pattern applies.
That's a good call out. The reason I'm doing this as a website and not a book is that this stuff changes all the time and I want to update it, so one of the things I'll try to do is add notes about when and where each pattern works as those constraints become clear.
I work as a consultant so I navigate different codebases, old to new, typescript to javascript, massive to small, frontend only to full stack.
Claude Code experience is massively different depending on the codebase.
Good E2E strongly typed codebase? Can one shot any feature, some small QA, some polishing and it's usually good to ship.
Plain javascript? Object oriented? Injection? Overall magic? Claude can work there but is not a pleasant experience and I wouldn't say it accelerates you that much.
Today I gave a lecture to my undergraduate data structures students about the evolution of CPU and GPU architectures since the late 1970s. The main themes:
- Through the last two decades of the 20th century, Moore’s Law held and ensured that more transistors could be packed into next year’s chips that could run at faster and faster clock speeds. Software floated on a rising tide of hardware performance so writing fast code wasn’t always worth the effort.
- Power consumption doesn’t vary with transistor density but varies with the cube of clock frequency, so by the early 2000s Intel hit a wall and couldn’t push the clock above ~4GHz with normal heat dissipation methods. Multi-core processors were the only way to keep the performance increasing year after year.
- Up to this point the CPU could squeeze out performance increases by parallelizing sequential code through clever scheduling tricks (and compilers could provide an assist by unrolling loops) but with multiple cores software developers could no longer pretend that concurrent programming was only something that academics and HPC clusters cared about.
CS curricula are mostly still stuck in the early 2000s, or at least it feels that way. We teach big-O and use it to show that mergesort or quicksort will beat the pants off of bubble sort, but topics like Amdahl’s Law are buried in an upper-level elective when in fact it is much more directly relevant to the performance of real code, on real present-day workloads, than a typical big-O analysis.
In any case, I used all this as justification for teaching bitonic sort to 2nd and 3rd year undergrads.
My point here is that Simon’s assertion that “code is cheap” feels a lot like the kind of paradigm shift that comes from realizing that in a world with easily accessible massively parallel compute hardware, the things that matter for writing performant software have completely shifted: minimizing branching and data dependencies produces code that looks profoundly different than what most developers are used to. e.g. running 5 linear passes over a column might actually be faster than a single merged pass if those 5 passes touch different memory and the merged pass has to wait to shuffle all that data in and out of the cache because it doesn’t fit.
What all this means for the software development process I can’t say, but the payoff will be tremendous (10-100x, just like with properly parallelized code) for those who can see the new paradigm first and exploit it.
I've recently got into red/greed TDD with claude code, and I have to agree that it seems like the right way to go.
As my projects were growing in complexity and scope, I found myself worrying that we were building things that would subtly break other parts of the application. Because of the limited context windows, it was clear that after a certain size, Claude kind of stops understanding how the work you're doing interacts with the rest of the system. Tests help protect against that.
Red/green TDD specifically ensures that the current work is quite focused on the thing that you're actually trying to accomplish, in that you can observe a concrete change in behaviour as a result of the change, with the added benefit of growing the test suite over time.
It's also easier than ever to create comprehensive integration test suites - my most valuable tests are tests that test entire user facing workflows with only UI elements, using a real backend.
Red/green is especially good with claude because even now with opus 4.6, claude can throw out a little comment like “//Implementation on hold until X/Y/Z: return { true }” and proceed to completely skip implementation based on the inline skip comment for a longgg time. It used to do this aggressively even in the tests, but by and large red/green prompting helps immensely - it tells the agent “think of failing tests as SUCCESS right now” - then you’ll get lots of them.
I’ve always been partial to integration tests too. Hand coding made integration tests feel bad; you’re almost doubling the code output in some cases - especially if you end up needing to mock a bunch of servers. Nowadays that’s cheap, which is super helpful.
Yeah, I've always _preferred_ integration tests, but the cost of building them was so great. Now the cost is effectively eliminated, and if you make a change that genuinely does affect an integration test (changing the text on a button, for example) it's easy to smart-find-and-replace and fix them up. So I'm using them a lot more.
The only problem is... they still take much longer to _run_ than unit tests, and they do tend to be more flaky (although Claude is helpful in fixing flaky tests too). I'm grateful for the extra safety, but it makes deployments that much slower. I've not really found a solution to that part beyond parallelising.
Granted it doesn't always pay attention to Claude.md but one thing I've done is in my block of rules it must always follow is to never leave something unimplemented w/ placeholders unless explicitly told to do so. It's made this mostly go away for me.
I primarily use AI for understanding codebases myself. My prompt is:
"deeply understand this codebase, clearly noting async/sync nature, entry points and external integration. Once understood prepare for follow up questions from me in a rapid fire pattern, your goal is to keep responses concise and always cite code snippets to ensure responses are factual and not hallucinated. With every response ask me if this particular piece of knowledge should be persistent into codebase.md"
Both the concise and structure nature (code snippets) help me gain knowledge of the entire codebase - as I progressively ask complex questions on the codebase.
I tried a slight variation of your prompt after reading this. It worked marvelously. Quick, correct answers instead of waiting for it to do exploration for each answer.
Strongly agree with the patterns list, but I think the order matters: observability and evals should come before sophistication.
Teams jump straight to multi-agent setups because it feels "advanced," then spend weeks debugging ghosts. A boring single-agent flow with strict tool contracts, replayable traces, and a small regression suite beats a clever architecture you can't reason about.
My rule of thumb now: if I can't explain why an agent made a decision from logs alone, it's not production-ready yet.
I have come to the same conclusion. I'm thinking it more like "raising" these subagents via iterations and tuning until they are "grown-up" and basically become reliable. Thats why even though I can setup a team pretty easily via claude code, I don't see the benefit until the would be team members are reliable. Once the main subagents are solid, we can move on to build a team by pointing them to these subagents - atleast thats what I'm thinking in my one-step-at-time slow way. Most probably overcautious and maybe even wrong but if I'm seeing a subagent doing weird stuff across many executions, I can't build much in terms of layers on top of it.
I contribute to an open source spec based project management tool. I spend about a day back and forth iterating on a spec, using ai to refine the spec itself. Sometimes feeding it in and out of Claude/gemini telling each other where the feedback has come from. The spec is the value. Using the ai pm tool I break it down into n tasks and sub tasks and dependencies. I then trigger Claude in teams mode to accomplish the project. It can be left alone over night. I wake up in the morning with n prs merged.
The code review bottleneck is even worse on edge devices. We ship Jetson-based systems running local AI agents, and the 'cheap code' problem compounds when you factor in ARM-specific bugs and thermal constraints that don't show up in testing. Learned the hard way: test coverage on x86 means nothing when your agent hits OOM on a Xavier at 3AM because someone let the LLM generate unbounded batch sizes.
Honestly the best thing about Simon's writing is he just shows you what works instead of inventing a whole taxonomy. Half the "patterns" people talk about are just... writing good prompts and checking the output? Like we've been doing error handling and retries forever, now its an Agentic Pattern(tm).
have loved simon wilson for a long long time and still do.
These patterns are all out of date by at least a year - the best devs I know were using Claude 3.5 like this
Absolutely great work. I have been mostly just thinking about what you are already practicing. I think your site will become an invaluable source for software engineers who want to responsibly apply AI in their development flow.
It baffles me how skeptical people here are of AI-assisted programming. If you don't see productivity gains I feel you're in deep denial.
It's true that in my company we're not building rockets or defense systems, maybe you guys are and in those scenarios it's less useful. But for typical LoB and/or consumer-facing software, AI is crushing it. Where I used to need 3 devs, now I just need one (and the support team around it: PM, BA, QA, Designer). For my business, AI has been a game changer.
Is "Agentic Engineering" is the new name for "Agent Experience"? If so, and even though I love Simon's contributions, there are many other guides to making codebases more welcoming to agents...
I hadn't heard that term before, is it widely used?
https://agentexperience.ax/ describes it as "refers to the holistic experience AI agents have when interacting with a product, platform, or system" which feels to me like a different concept to figuring out patterns for effectively using coding agents as a software engineer.
There was a mention of using agents to build projects into WASM. I've had the best luck telling it to use zig to compile to webassembly. It shortens the time to completion by a significant amount.
What none of these patterns address is the human side. What happens when someone actually uses an AI agent to do the work of their entire team?
Not hypothetically -- like, actually does it. Ships the quarterly analysis, writes the strategy memo, builds the model. All in a fraction of the time. And then management finds out.
There's a short film that nails this exact scenario and it's weirdly accurate for anyone who's worked in a large org: https://youtu.be/O5FFkHUdKyE
The engineering patterns will keep evolving. But the harder problem is what organizations do when one person with an AI agent outperforms a department. That's not a technical problem -- it's a people problem.
Linear walkthrough: I ask my agents to give me a numbered tree. Controlling tree size specifies granularity. Numbering means it's simple to refer to points for discussion.
Other things that I feel are useful:
- Very strict typing/static analysis
- Denying tool usage with a hook telling the agent why+what they should do (instead of simple denial, or dangerously accepting everything)
For web apps, explictly asking the agent to build in sensible checkpoints and validate at the checkpoint using Playwright has been very successful for me so far. It prevents the agent from strating off course and struggling to find its way back. That and always using plan mode first, and reviewing the plan for evidence of sensible checkpoints. /opusplan to save tokens!
Very much agree with the idea of red/green TDD and have seen really good results during agentic coding. I've found adding a linting step in between increases efficiency as well and fails a bit faster. So it becomes..
Test fail -> implement -> linter -> test pass
Another idea I've thought about using is docs driven development. So the instructions might look like..
Write doc for feat/bug > test fail > implement > lint > test pass
The code review bottleneck point resonates a lot. When agents can generate PRs in minutes, the human review step becomes the critical bottleneck — and it doesn't scale with generation speed. The teams I've seen handle this best treat agent output like a junior dev's work: smaller atomic commits, mandatory test coverage as a gate, and explicit reviewer checklists focused on logic rather than syntax. The shift is from "does this look right" to "does this behave correctly under these conditions."
This sort of thing is available using utilities like spec kit/spec kitty/etc. But yes it does make it do better, including writing its own checklists so that it comes back to the tasks it identified early on without distraction.
I see where Simon is coming from with these patterns but I wonder where large software companies stand regarding their agentic engineering practices? Is Google creating in-house code using agents against its monorepo? Has Microsoft outsourced Windows source code advancements to a dark factory yet?
Yesterday I wrote a post about exactly this. Software development, as the act of manually producing code, is dying. A new discipline is being born. It is much closer to proper engineering.
Like an engineer overseeing the construction of a bridge, the job is not to lay bricks. It is to ensure the structure does not collapse.
The marginal cost of code is collapsing. That single fact changes everything.
Quite a heavy-lifting word here. You understand why people flagged that post right? It's painfully non-human. I'm all for utilizing LLM, but I highly suggest you read Simon's posts. He's obviously a heavy AI user, but even his blog posts aren't that inorganic and that's why he became the new HN blog babe.
[0]: I personally believe Simon writes with his own voice, but who knows?
How paranoid do you want to get? Simone's written enough, such that you could just feed his blog to AI and ask it to write in his voice. Which, taken to the logical extreme, means that the last time he went to visit OpenAI, he was captured, and locked in a dungeon, and his online presence is now entirely AI with the right prompt. In fact, that's happened to everyone on this site, and we're all LLMs just predicting the next word at each other.
There's no actual way to determine if any words are from a silicon token generator or meat-based generator. It's not AI, it's human! Emdash. You're absolutely right!
This is such a strange take. Your words remind me of past crypto hype cycles, where people pushed web3.0 and NFT FOMO hysteria.
Engineering is
the practical application of science and mathematics to solve problems. It sounds like you're maybe describing construction management instead. I'm not denying that there's value here, but what you're espousing seems divorced from reality. Good luck vibecoding a nontrivial actuarial model, then having it to pass the laundry list of reviews and having large firms actually pick it up.
> This is such a strange take. Your words remind me of past crypto hype cycles, where people pushed web3.0 and NFT FOMO hysteria.
Thats a little harsh. I think most everyone would agree we're in a transformative time for engineering. Sure theres hype, but the adoption in our profession (assuming you're an engineer) isn't waning.
I would not equate software engineering to "proper" engineering insofar as being uttered in the same sentence as mechanical, chemical, or electrical engineering.
The cost of code is collapsing because web development is not broadly rigorous, robust software was never a priority, and everyone knows it. The people complaining that AI isn't good enough yet don't grasp that neither are many who are in the profession currently.
> The people complaining that AI isn't good enough yet don't grasp that neither are many who are in the profession currently.
I think the externalities are being ignored. Having time and money to train engineers is expensive. Having all the data of your users being stolen is a slap in the wrist.
So replacing those bad worekrs with AI is fine. Unless you remove the incentives to be fast instead of good, then yeah AI can be good enough for some cases.
The claim here is profound: comprehension of the codebase at the function level is no longer necessary
It's not profound. It's not profound when I read the exact same awed blog post about how "agentic" is the future and you don't even need to know code anymore.
It wasn't profound the first time, and it's even dumber that people keep repeating it - maybe they take all the time they saved not writing, and use it to not read.
The formal engineering disciplines are not defined by the construction vs design distinction so much as the regulatory gates they have passed and the ethical burdens they shoulder for society's benefit.
The best thing I read in this was "Hoard things you know how to do" > basically get an LLM to mutate an existing function you know is 1. well written and 2. works. If you have many such components you're still assembling code rapidly but using building blocks you actually understand in depth, rather than getting an LLM to shit out something verbose.
I think most of these writeups are packaging familiar engineering moves into LLM-shaped language. In my experience the real value is operational: explicit tool interfaces, idempotent steps, checkpoints and durable workflows run in Temporal or Airflow, with Playwright for browser tasks and a vector DB for state so you can replay and debug failures. The tradeoff is extra latency, token cost and engineering overhead, so expect to spend most of your time on retries, schema validation and monitoring rather than on clever prompt hacks, and use function calling or JSON schemas to keep tool outputs predictable.
> I think most of these writeups are packaging familiar engineering moves into LLM-shaped language.
They are, and that's deliberate.
Something I'm finding neat about working with coding agents is that most of the techniques that get better results out of agents are techniques that work for larger teams of humans too.
If you've already got great habits around automated testing, documentation, linting, red/green TDD, code review, clean atomic commits etc - you're going to get much better results out of coding agents as well.
My devious plan here is to teach people good software engineering while tricking them into thinking the book is about AI.
Only until March 6th, I'm selling site-wide sponsorship a week at a time. Those sponsors get no influence over what I write about at all - I started this entire guide without even mentioning it to them.
This brings the Linux Kernel style patch => discuss => merge by maintainer workflow to agents. You get bisect safe patches you 'review' and provide feedback and approve.
While a SKILL could mimic this, being built in allows me to place access control and 'gate' destructive actions so the LLM is forced to follow this workflow. Overall, this works really well for me. I am able to get bisect-safe patches, and then review / re-roll them until I get exactly what I want, then I merge them.
Sure this may be the path to software factories, but it scales 'enough' for medium size projects and I've been able to build in a way that I maintain strong understanding of the code that goes in.
The underlying technology is still improving at a rapid pace. Many of last year's tricks are a waste of tokens now. Some ideas seem less fragile: knowing two things allows you to imagine the confluence of the two so you know to ask. Other things are less so: I'm a big fan of the test-based iteration loop; it is so effective that I suspect almost all users have arrived at it independently[0]. But the emergent properties of models are so hard to actually imagine. A future sufficiently-smart intelligence may take a different approach that is less search and more proof. I wouldn't bet on it, but I've been surprised too many times over the last few years.
I mainly work with documents as a white collar worker but have vibe coded a few bits.
The thing I keep coming back to is that it's all code. Almost all white collar professions have at least some key outputs in code. Whether you are a store manager filling out reports or a marketing firm or a teacher, there is so much code.
This means you can give claude code a branded document template, fill it out, include images etc. and uploaded to our cloud hosting.
With this same guidance and taste, I'm doing close to the work of 5 people.
Setup: Claude code with full API access to all my digital spaces + tmux running 3-5 tasks in parallel
White colar work is just a lucky place to be, 99% of it is completely made up, there's people doing nothing, and people doing work of 10 people, does not matter, the work itself has no impact on anything.
A nice way to realize why this AI wave hasn't produced massive economy growth, it is mostly touching parts of economy which are parasitic and can't really create growth.
the tautological test problem someone mentioned, i've found the easiest fix is to literally make the test fail first before letting the agent fix it
like don't ask it to "write tests for this function", instead give it a function that's deliberately broken in a specific way, make it write a test that catches that bug, verify the test actually fails, THEN fix the function
this forces the test to be meaningful because it has to detect a real failure mode. if the agent can't make the test fail by breaking the code, the test is useless
the other thing that helps is being really specific about edge cases upfront. instead of "write tests for this API endpoint", say "write tests that verify it returns 400 when the email field is missing, returns 409 when the email already exists, returns 422 when the email is malformed" etc
agents are weirdly good at implementing specific test scenarios but terrible at figuring out what scenarios actually matter. which honestly is the same problem junior devs have lol
Is there anything about reviewing the generated code? Not by the author but by another human being.
Colleagues don’t usually like to review AI generated code. If they use AI to review code, then that misses the point of doing the review. If they do the review manually (the old way) it becomes a bottleneck (we are faster at producing code now than we are at reviewing it)
The most important thing you need to understand with working with agents for coding is that now you design a production line. And that has nothing to do (mostly) with designing or orchestrating agents.
Take a guitar, for example. You don't industrialize the manufacture of guitars by speeding up the same practices that artisans used to build them. You don't create machines that resemble individual artisans in their previous roles (like everyone seems to be trying to do with AI and software). You become Leo Fender, and you design a new kind of guitar that is made to be manufactured at another level of scale magnitude. You need to be Leo Fender though (not a talented guitarrist, but definitely a technical master).
To me, it sounds too early to describe patterns, since we haven't met the Ford/Fender/etc equivalent of this yet. I do appreciate the attempt though.
A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does
All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests”
I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LLM observability
People come up with the most insane workflow for agents. They complete about 80% of the work but that last 20% is basically equivalent to you doing the whole thing piece wise (with the help of AI). Except the latter gives you peace of mind.
I am still not sold on agentic coding. We’ll probably get there within the next couple of years.
I'm curious what you've used it for? I was firmly in your camp until about a month ago when i used codex to dust off an old side project. I hadn't touched the project in six months. This was literally my first prompt:
"Explain the codebase to a newcomer. What is the general structure, what are the important things to know, and what are some pointers for things to learn next?"
Once I saw the output I giddyup'd and haven't looked back.
patterns that may help increase subjective perception of reliability from non-deterministic text generators trained on the theft of millions of developer's work for the past 25 years.
I think it's nonsensical to insist that it would only be a subjective improvement. The tests either exist and ensure that there aren't bugs in certain areas, or they don't. The agent is either in a feedback loop with those tests and continues to work until it has satisfied them or it doesn't.
Red-Green TDD is one of the main "agent patterns" Simon proposes, so it seemed relevant.
Also, the same thing applies to feedback loops with compilers and linters as well: they provide objective feedback that then the AI goes and fixes, verifiably resolving the feedback.
Even with less verifiable things like using specifications, the fact that it relies on less objective grounding metrics doesn't mean there's no change in the model's behavior. I'm sure if you looked at the code that a model produced and the amount of intervention necessary to get there for a model that was asked to produce something without a specification versus with one, you would definitely see an objective difference on average. We're already getting objective studies regarding AGENTS.MD
Do you think there’s a chance that the hundreds of thousands or millions of developers - real developers - using these tools, might actually find them useful?
Dismissing everything AI as slop strikes me as an attitude that is not going to age well. You’ll miss the boat when it does come (and I believe it already has).
I think you’ve got to make hay while the sun shines. Nobody knows how this is all going to play out, I just want to make sure I’m at the forefront of it.
I think the relative comfort we've enjoyed as software engineers is going to disappear eventually. I just want to be the last to go.
My whole career, I've remained valuable by staying at the forefront of what is possible and connecting that to users' needs. Nothing has changed about my approach from that perspective.
I'm not an investor so I have no idea how they should think.
We're going to do it again, aren't we? We're going to take something simple and sensible ("write tests first", "small composable modules", etc.), give it a fancy complicated name ("Behavior-Constrained Implementation Lifecycle pattern", "Boundary-Scoped Processing Constructs pattern", etc.), and create an entire industry of consultants and experts selling books and enterprise coaching around it, each swearing they have the secret sauce and the right incantations.
The damn thing _talks_. You can just _speak_ to it. You can just ask it to do what you want.
Common business-oriented language (COBOL) is a high-level, English-like, compiled programming language.
COBOL's promise was that it was human-like text, so we wouldn't need programmers anymore.
The problem is that the average person doesn't know how what their actual problems are in sufficient detail to get a working solution. When you get down to breaking down that problem... you become a programmer.
The main lesson of COBOL is that it isn't the computer interface/language that necessitates a programmer.
Agreed, the programmer is not going away. However, I expect the role is going to change dramatically and the SDLC is going to have to adapt. The programmer used to be the non-deterministic function creating the deterministic code. Along with that were multiple levels of testing from unit to acceptance in order to come to some close alignment with what the end-user actually intended as their project goals. Now the programmer is using the probabilistic AI to generate definitive tests so that it can then non-deterministically create deterministic code to pass those tests. All to meet the indefinite project goals defined by the end-user. Or is there going to be another change in role where the project manager is the one using the AI to write the tests since they have a closer relationship to the customer and the programmer is the one responsible for wrangling the code to validate against those tests.
I predict the main democratization change is going to be how easy people can make plumbing that doesn't require--or at least not obviously require--such specificity or mental-modeling of the business domain.
For example, "Generate me some repeatable code to ask system X for data about Y, pull out value Z, and submit it to system W."
What happens when value Z is not >= X? What happens when value Z doesn't exist, but values J and K do? What should be done when...
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's going to be entertaining watching people go "I guess this is why we paid Bob all of that money all those years".
> when value Z is not >= X?
Is your AI not even doing try/catch statements, what century are you in?
This seems needlessly nitpicky. Of course there will be edge cases, there always are in everything, so pointing out that edge cases may exist isn't helpful.
But it stands to reason that would be a huge shift if a system accessible to non-technical users could mostly handle those edge cases, even when "handle" means failing silently without taking the entire thing down, or simply raising them for human intervention via Slack message or email or a dashboard or something.
And Bob's still going to get paid a lot of money he'll just be doing stuff that's more useful than figuring out how negative numbers should be parsed in the ETL pipeline.
Hence the "not obviously require" bit: Some portion of those "simply gluing things together" will not actually be simple in truth. It'll work for a time until errors come to a head, then suddenly they'll need a professional to rip out the LLM asbestos and rework it properly.
That said, we should not underestimate the ability of companies to limp along with something broken and buggy, especially when they're being told there's no budget to fix it. (True even before LLMs.)
> The problem is that the average person doesn't know how what their actual problems are in sufficient detail to get a working solution. When you get down to breaking down that problem... you become a programmer.
Agreed. I've spent the last few years building an EMR at an actual agency and the idea that users know what they want and can articulate it to a degree that won't require ANY technical decisions is pure fantasy in my experience.
Right now with agents this is definitely going to continue to be the case. That said, at the end of the day engineers work with stakeholders to come up with a solution. I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future. I say this as someone who is excited but at the same time terrified of this future and what it means to our field.
I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased). I feel that current models are missing critical thinking skills that I feel you need to fully take on this role.
> I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future.
Yea, we'll see. I didn't think they'd come this far, but they have. Though, the cracks I still see seem to be more or less just how LLMs work.
It's really hard to accurately assess this given how much I have at stake.
> and he's far more qualified albeit biased
Yea, I think biased is an understatement. And he's working on a very specific product. How much can any one person really understand the entire industry or the scope of all it's work? He's worked at Google and OpenAi. Not exactly examples of your standard line-of-business software building.
> I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased).
If Opus 4.6 had 100M context, 100x higher throughput and latency, and 100x cheaper $/token, we'd be much closer. We'd still need to supervise it, but it could do a whole lot more just by virtue of more I/O.
Of course, whether scaling everything by 100x is possible given current techniques is arguable in itself.
Worse yet, the problems are going to be real.
There's a lifecycle to these hype runs, even when the thing behind the hype is plenty real. We're still in the phase where if you criticize AI you get told you don't "get it", so people are holding back some of their criticisms because they won't be received well. In this case, I'm not talking about the criticisms of the people standing back and taking shots at the tech, I'm talking about the criticisms of those heavily using it.
At some point, the dam will break, and it will become acceptable, if not fashionable, to talk about the real problems the tech is creating. Right now there is only the tiniest trickle from the folk who just don't care how they are perceived, but once it becomes acceptable it'll be a flood.
And there are going to be problems that come from using vast quantities of AI on a code base, especially of the form "created so much code my AI couldn't handle it anymore and neither could any of the humans involved". There's going to need to be a discussion on techniques on how to handle this. There's going to be characteristic problems and solutions.
The thing that really makes this hard to track though is the tech itself is moving faster than this cycle does. But if the exponential curve turns into a sigmoid curve, we're going to start hearing about these problems. If we just get a few more incremental improvements on what we have now, there absolutely are going to be patterns as to how to use AI and some very strong anti-patterns that we'll discover, and there will be consultants, and little companies that will specialize in fixing the problems, and people who propose buzzword solutions and give lots of talks about it and attract an annoying following online, and all that jazz. Unless AI proceeds to the point that it can completely replace a senior engineer from top to bottom, this is inevitable.
> And there are going to be problems that come from using vast quantities of AI on a code base, especially of the form "created so much code my AI couldn't handle it anymore and neither could any of the humans involved". There's going to need to be a discussion on techniques on how to handle this. There's going to be characteristic problems and solutions.
That's essentially the thing we are calling "cognitive debt".
I have a chapter with one small thing to help address that here - https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern... - but it's a much bigger topic and will require extensive exploration by the whole industry to figure out.
Yeah, it's hard to even get started until we can go three months without a significant improvement in the AIs. Today's characteristic failures may not be 2027's characteristic failures. Example: Today I'm complaining that the AIs tend not to abstract as often as I'd like, but it's not hard to imagine it flipping until they're all architecture astronauts instead.
I'm not sure what this comment is addressing, I didn't find any fancy terms in TFA? If it's the title of the article itself, it seems simpler than "Things that help writing code effectively with AI agents."
> You can just ask it to do what you want.
Yes, but very clearly, as any HN thread on AI shows, different people are having VERY different outcomes with it. And I suspect it is largely the misconception that it will magically "just do what you want" that leads to poor outcomes.
The techniques mentioned -- coding, docs, modularity etc. -- may seem obvious now, but only recently did we realize that the primary principle emerging is "what's good for humans is good for agents." That was not at all obvious when we started off. It is doubly counter-intuitive given the foremost caveat has been "Don't anthropomorphize AI." I'm finding that is actually a decent way to understand these models. They are unnervingly like us, yet not like us.
All that to say, AI is essentially black magic and it is not yet obvious how to use it well for all people and all use-cases, so yes, more exposition is warranted.
I think the problem is that because it talks and understands English and more or less does whatever you ask, the affordences aren't particularly clear. That's actually one of the biggest problems with the chatbot model of AI — it has the same problems as the CLI, in that it's extremely flexible and powerful and you can do a lot with it and add a lot to it, but it's really not clear what way of interacting with it is more or less effective than any other, or what it can or can't do well.
I think attempts to document the most effective things to ask it to do in order to get to your overall goal, as well as what it is and is not good for, is probably worth doing. It would be bad if it turned into a whole consultant marketing OOP coaching clusterfuck. Yeah, but building some kind of community knowledge that these things aren't like, demigods, they have limitations and during things one way or the other with them can be better is probably a good thing. At the very least in theory would cut down some of the hype?
Wait: "write tests first" isn't simple and it's controversial. The benefits of TDD in pure-human development are debatable (I'd argue, in many cases, even dubious). But the equation changes with LLMs, because the cost of generating tests (and of keeping them up to date) plummets, and test cases are some of the easiest code to generate and reason about.
It's not as simple an observation as you're making it out to be.
> We're going to do it again, aren't we?
yes. It sucks but I think it's good for the next generation of tech industry employees to watch this. It's happening quickly so you get a 10 year timeline compressed into a few years which makes it easier to follow and expose. The bloggers will come, then speakers, then there will be books. Consultants will latch on and start initiatives at their clients. Once enough large enterprises are sold on it, there will come associations and certification bodies so a company can say "we have X certified abc on staff". Manifestos will be released, version numbers will be incremented so there's a steady flow of work writing books, doing trainings, and getting the next level certified.
This is standard issue tech industry stuff (and it probably happens everywhere else too) but compressed into a tighter timeline so you don't have to wait a decade to see it unfold.
Better cash in on the woo woo before it gets old! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMQuBTGr52I
> create an entire industry of consultants and experts selling books and enterprise coaching around it
I suspect that this time around, management will expect the AI chatbot to explain these things to you, because who pays for anything anymore if the AI can do it all.
There's already BMAD - Breakthrough Method of Agile Agent Driven Development
Basically, it's Waterfall for Agents. Lots of Capitalized Words to signify something.
Also they constantly call it the BMAD Method, even though the M already stands for method.
I don’t know, Simon has had a pretty sane and level head on his shoulders on this stuff. To my mind he’s earned the right to be taken seriously when talking about approaches he has found helpful.
I'm confused. Are you criticising the article, or simply expressing concern for what may happen?
The context suggests the former, but your criticisms bear no relation to the linked content. If anything, your edict to "write tests first" is even more succinctly expressed as "Red/green TDD".
But it is related, isn't it? I wrote "...each swearing they have the secret sauce and the right incantations...". Now compare it to ""Use red/green TDD" is a pleasingly succinct way to get better results out of a coding agent."
Doesn't it sound like the "right incantation"? That's the point of LLMs, they can understand (*) intent. You'd get the same result saying "do tdd" or "do the stuff everyone says they do but they don't, with the failing test first, don't remember the name, but you know what I'm saying innit?"
I'm perhaps uncharitable, and this article just happens to take the collateral damage, but I'm starting to see the same corruption that turned "At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective" into "Mandatory retro exactly once every fortnight, on a board with precisely three columns".
I view it as a collection of potentially helpful tips which have worked well for the author, which is exactly how it's presented.
There's no suggestion that this is The Only Blessed Way.
If all I have todo is ask the thing what I want, where is all the great new software? Why isn't everyone running fully bespoke operating systems by now?
While I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't make things more complicated by inventing fancy names, we also shouldn't pretend that software engineering has become super simple now. Building a great piece of software remains super hard to do and finding better techniques for it affords real study.
Your post is annoying me quite a bit because it's super unfair to the linked post. Simon Willison isn't trying to coin a new term, he's just trying to start a collection of useful patterns. "Agentic engineering" is just the obvious term for software engineering using agents. What would you call it, "just asking things"?
> If all I have todo is ask the thing what I want, where is all the great new software? Why isn't everyone running fully bespoke operating systems by now?
I was speaking from a software engineer's point of view, in the context of the article, where one of the "agentic" patterns is ... test-driven development? Which you summon out of the agent by saying ... "Do test-driven development", more or less?
> What would you call it, "just asking things"?
I'd call it software engineering. What makes good software didn't suddenly change, and there's fundamentally no secret sauce to getting an agent to do it. If I think a class does too many things, then I tell the agent "This class does too many things, move X and Y methods into a new class".
Has anyone staked a claim to "Agile AI" yet?
I suggest "AIgile" for brevity.
Agile Intelligence
I've seen several already. There's a huge business opportunity (at our expense, of course).
At this point what is happening that is not at our expense? Hell if I could be a grifter and start another .ai company honestly I would. I guess I am just not that talented.
You haven’t heard of spec driven development?!? Haha.
> The damn thing _talks_. You can just _speak_ to it. You can just ask it to do what you want
I mean - yeah. So do humans. But it turns out that that a lot of humans require considerable process to productively organize too. A pet thesis of mine is that we are just (re-) discovering the usefulness of process and protocol.
> The damn thing _talks_. You can just _speak_ to it. You can just ask it to do what you want.
But can it pass the butter?
People are rushing to be the first one to coin something and hit it big. Imagine the amount of $$$ you could get for being an "expert ai consultant" in this space.
There was already another attempt at agentic patterns earlier:
https://agentic-patterns.com/
Absolute hot air garbage.
Which pieces of my writing are garbage?
I've followed you for a while (maybe 2-3 years?) and love your writing. Your posts are always approachable and easy to digest.
I really don't understand where the HN hate comes from. I hope you aren't giving negative comments too much attention.
They won't have a decent response, this is the Internet after all. I really enjoyed it thanks for writing it and I'll take a lot of it onboard. I think everyone will have their own software stack and AIs designed perfectly for them to do their work in the future.
It's not hot air garbage.
Secondly: this is a temporary vacuum state. We're only needed to bridge the gap.
I wouldn't be trying to be a consultant, I would be scurrying to ensure we have access to these tools once they're industrial. A "$5M button" to create any business function won't be within the reach of labor capital, but it will be for financial capital. That's the world we're headed to.
Simon, if you're reading this, I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts on how to effectively conduct code reviews in a world where "code is cheap".
One of the biggest struggles I have on my team is coworkers straight up vibing parts of the code and not understanding or guiding the architecture of subsystems. Or at least, not writing code in a way that is meant to be understood by others.
Then when I go through the code and provide extensive feedback (mostly architectural and highlighting odd inconsistencies with the code additions) I'm met with much pushback because "it works, why change it"? Not to mention the sheer size of prs ballooning in recent months.
The end result is me being the bottleneck because I can't keep up with the "pace" of code being generated, and feeling a lot of discomfort and pressure to lower my standards.
I've thought about using a code review agent to review and act as me in proxy, but not being able to control the exact output worries me. And I don't like the lack of human touch it provides. Maybe someone has advice on a humane way to handle this problem.
This is genuinely one of the most interesting questions right now. I don't have solid answers yet, and I'm very keen to learn what people are finding works.
If you accelerate the pace of code creation it inevitably creates bottlenecks elsewhere. Code review is by far the biggest of those right now.
There may be an argument for leaning less on code review. When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
But I don't want to lower my standards! I want the code I'm producing with coding agents to be better than the code I would produce without them.
There are some aspects of code review that you cannot skimp on. Things like coding standards may not matter as much, but security review will never be optional.
I've recently been wondering what we can learn from security teams at large companies. Once you have dozens or hundreds of teams shipping features at the same time - teams with varying levels of experience - you can no longer trust those teams not to make mistakes. I expect that the same strategies used by security teams at Facebook/Google-scale organizations could now be relevant to smaller organizations where coding agents are responsible for increasing amounts of code.
Generally though I think this is very much an unsolved problem. I hope to document the effective patterns for this as they emerge.
I think Martin Fowler's "Refactoring" might give a bit of insight here. One of my take-aways after reading that book is that the specific implementation of a function is not very important if you have tests. He argues that it can sometimes be easier to completely re-write a function than to take the time to understand it - as long as you can validate that your re-write performs the same way. This mindset lines up pretty closely with how I've been using LLMs.
If that's true, then I would think the emphasis in code review should be more on test quality and verifying that the spec is captured accurately, and as you suggest, the actual implementation is less important.
This is why I've been pushing back on the "just have the AI generate the tests!" mentality. Sure, let it help you, but those tests are the guarantee of quality and fit for purpose. If you vibe code them, how the hell do you know if it even does what you think it does?
You should be planning out the tests to properly exercise the spec, and ensuring those tests actually do what the spec requires. AI can suggest more tests (but be careful here, too, because a ballooned test suite slows down CICD), but it should never be in charge of them completely.
That's my experience with agentic development so far, a lot of extra time goes into testing.
Problem is, the way I've been trained to test isn't exactly antagonistic. QA does that kind of thing. Programmers writing tests are generally rather doing spot checks that only make sense if the code is generally understood and trustworthy. Code LLMs produce is usually broken in subtle, hard to spot ways.
Counter-point, developers that get used to not caring about function implementation, are going to culturally also not care as much about test implementation, making this proposed ideal impossible.
with LLMs, tests cost nearly nothing of effort but provide tremendous value.
And you know those tests are correct how?
Look at what they are testing.
> There may be an argument for leaning less on code review. When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
Agree with everything else you said except this. In my opinion, this assumes code becomes more like a consumable as code-production costs reduce. But I don't think that's the case. Incorrect, but not visibly incorrect, code will sit in place for years.
> Agree with everything else you said except this.
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with what I said there myself!
> Incorrect, but not visibly incorrect, code will sit in place for years.
If you let incorrect code sit in place for years I think that suggests a gap in your wider process somewhere.
I'm still trying to figure out what closing those gaps looks like.
The StrongDM pattern is interesting - having an ongoing swarm of testing agents which hammer away at a staging cluster trying different things and noting stuff that breaks. Effectively an agent-driven QA team.
I'm not going to add that to the guide until I've heard it working for other teams and experienced it myself though!
This kinda gets into the idea of AIs as droids right?
So, you have a code writing droid that is aligned towards writing good clean code that humans can read. Then you have an implementation droid that goes into actually launching and running the code and is aligned with business needs and expenses. And you have a QA droid that stress tests the code and is aligned with the hacker mindset and is just slightly evil, so to speak.
Each droid is working together to make good code, but also are independent and adversarial in the day to day.
These are just agents with a different name ? People have been working like that today.
It assumes that bugs are rare and easy to fix. A look at Claude Code's issue tracker (https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues) tells you that this is not so. Your product could be perpetually broken, lurching from one vibe coded bug to another.
> When code is expensive to produce and is likely to stay in production for many years it's obviously important to review it very carefully. If code is cheap and can be inexpensively replaced maybe we can lower our review standards?
I don't care how cheap it is to replace the incorrect code when it's modifying my bank account or keeping my lights on.
One model I've seen is moving the review stage to the designs, not the code itself.
I.e. have a `planning/designs/unbuilt/...` folder that contains markdown descriptions of features/changes that would have gotten a PR. Now do the review at the design level.
Agent based code reviews is what you want. But you have to do set it up with really good context about what is wanted. You then review the reviews, keep improving the context it is working with. Make sure it's put into everyone's global context they work with as well.
Weirdly this article doesn't really talk about the main agentic pattern
- Plan (really important to start with a plan before code changes). iteratively build a plan to implement something. You can also have a colelctive review of the plan, make sure its what you want and there is guidance about how it should implement in terms of architecture (should also be pulling on pre existing context about your architecure /ccoding standards), what testing should be built. Make sure the agent reviews the plan, ask the agent to make suggestions and ask questions
- Execute. Make the agent (or multiple agents) execute on the plan
- Test / Fix cycle
- Code Review / Refactor
- Generate Test Guidance for QA
Then your deliverables are Code / Feature context documentation / Test Guidance + evolving your global/project context
I'm still trying to figure out how to write about planning.
The problem is Claude Code has a planning mode baked in, which works really well but is quite custom to how Claude Code likes to do things.
When I describe it as a pattern I want to stretch a little beyond the current default implementation in one of the most popular coding agents.
Maintaining a high-quality requirements / specification document for large features prior to implementation, and then referencing it in "plan mode" prompts, feels like consensus best practice at this stage.
However a thing I'm finding quite valuable in my own workflows, but haven't seen much discussion of, is spending meaningful time with AI doing meta-planning of that document. For example, I'll spend many sessions partnered with AI just iterating on the draft document, asking it to think through details, play contrarian, surface alternatives, poke holes, identify points of confusion, etc. It's been so helpful for rapidly exploring a design space, and I frequently find it makes suggestions that are genuinely surprising or change my perspective about what we should build.
I feel like I know we're "done" when I thoroughly understand it, a fresh AI instance seems to really understand it (as evaluated by interrogating it), and neither of us can find anything meaningful to improve. At that point we move to implementation, and the actual code writing falls out pretty seamlessly. Plus, there's a high quality requirements document as a long-lived artifact.
Obviously this is a heavyweight process, but is suited for my domain and work.
ETA one additional practice: if the agent gets confused during implementation or otherwise, I find it's almost always due to a latent confusion about the requirements. Ask the agent why it did a thing, figure out how to clarify in the requirements, and try again from the top rather than putting effort into steering the current session.
> consensus best practice
I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't think there needs to be a whole spec & documentation process before plan mode.
There is alternative thought leadership that the waterfall approach for building out projects is not the right Agentic pattern[1].
Planning itself can be such an intensive process where you're designing and figuring out the specs on the fly in a focused manner for the thing the agent will actually develop next. Not sure how useful it is to go beyond this in terms of specs that live outside of the Agentic loop for what should be developed now and next.
I've evolved my own process, originally from plain Claude Code to Claude Code with heavy spec integrated capabilities. However, that became a burden for me: a lot of contextual drift in those documents and then self managing & orchestrating of Claude Code over those documents. I've since reoriented myself to base Claude Code with a fairly high-level effort specific to ad-hoc planning sessions. Sometimes the plans will revolve around specific GitHub issues or feature requests in the ticketing system, but that's about it.
[1] https://boristane.com/blog/the-software-development-lifecycl...
I think there's a Danger Zone when planning is light-weight and iterative, and code is cheap, but reviewing code is expensive: it leads to a kind of local hill-climbing.
Suppose you iterate through many sessions of lightweight planning, implementation, and code review. It _feels_ high velocity, you're cranking through the feature, but you've also invested a lot of your time and energy (planning isn't free, and code review and fit-for-purpose checks, in particular, are expensive). As often happens -- with or without AI -- you get towards the end and realize: there might have been a fundamentally better approach to take.
The tradeoff of that apparent velocity is that _now_ course correction is much more challenging. Those ephemeral plans are now gone. The effort you put into providing context within those plans is gone. You have an locally optimal solution, but you don't have a great way of expressing how to start over from scratch pointed in a slightly different direction.
I think that part can be really valuable, because given a sufficiently specific arrow, the AI can just rip.
Whether it's worth the effort, I suppose, depends on how high-conviction you are on your original chosen approach.
You could have a look at: https://github.com/jurriaan/aico
It does 2 things that are very important, 1: reviewing should not be done last, but during the process and 2: plans should result into verifyable specs, preferably in a natural language so you can avoid locking yourself into specific implementation details (the "how") too early.
> what testing should be built
Yea, a big part of my planning has included what verification steps will be necessary along the way or at the end. No plan gets executed without that and I often ask for specific focus on this aspect in plan mode.
yeah, spending a bunch of time with the plan is really worthwhile, nearly all aspects of the plan are worth a bunch of attention. Getting it to think about edge cases and all the scenarios for testing is really worthwhile, what can be automated, what manual testing should be done. It's often working through testing scenarios that I often see gaps in the plan.
> I'm met with much pushback because "it works, why change it"?
This is an educational problem, and is unlikely to be easy to fix in your team (though I might be wrong). I would suggest to change to a team or company with a culture that values being able to reason about one’s software.
"It works, why change it?" is a horrible attitude but is an organizational and interpersonal problem, not a technical one. They're only 1/3 of the way done according to Kent Beck.¹
There are plenty of orgs using AI who still care about architecture and having easily human-readable, human-maintainable code. Maybe that's becoming an anachronism, and those firms will go the way of the Brontosaurus. Maybe it will be a competitive advantage. Who knows?
¹ "Make it work, make it right, make it fast."
The way I am handing this - investing heavily in static and dynamic analysis aspects.
- A lot more linting rules than ever before, also custom rule sets that do more org and project level validations.
- Harder types enforcement in type optional languages , Stronger and deeper typing in all of them .
- beyond unit tests - test quality coverage tooling like mutation testing(stryker) and property based testing (quickcheck) if you can go that precise
- much more dx scripts and build harnesses that are specific to org and repo practices that usually junior/new devs learn over time
- On dynamic side , per pull requests environments with e2e tests that agents can validate against and iterate when things don’t work.
- documentation generation and skill curation. After doing a batch of pull requests reviews I will spend time in seeing where the gaps are in repo skills and agents.
All this becomes pre-commit heavy, and laptops cannot keep up in monorepos, so we ended up doing more remote containers on beefy machines and investing and also task caching (nx/turborepo have this )
Reviews (agentic or human) have their uses , but doing this with reviews is just high latency, inefficient and also tends to miss things and we become the bottleneck.
Earlier the coder(human or agent) gets repeatable consistent feedback it is better
We make the creator of the PR responsible for the code. Meaning they must understand it.
Also, we only allow engineers to commit (agent generated) code. Designers just come up with suggestions, engineers take it and ensure it fits our architecture.
We do have a huge codebase. We are teaching Claude Code with CLAUDE.md's and now also <feature>.spec.md (often a summary of the implementation plan).
In the end, engineers are responsible.
Can you document the hard architectural requirements of your codebase? And keep it up to date? If you can do that, you can force your coworkers to always use those requirements during their prompting /planning for their implementations and you can feed that to an agent and have that review the code.
But more proactively, if people aren't going to write their own code, I think there needs to be a review process around their prompts, before they generate any code at all. Make this a formal process, generate the task list you're going to feed to your LLM, write a spec, and that should be reviewed. This is not a substitute for code reviews, but it tends to ensure that there are only nitpick issues left, not major violations of how the system is intended to be architected.
I’m running into this problem as well with juniors slinging code that takes me a very long time to understand and review. I’m iterating on an AGENTS.md file to share with them because they aren’t going to stop using AI and I’m a little tied of always saying the same things (Claude loves to mock everything and assert that spies were called X times with Y arguments which is a great recipe for brittle tests, for example)
I know they won’t stop using AI so giving them a directives file that I’ve tried out might at least increase the quality of the output and lower my reviewing burden.
Open to other ideas too :)
Have an AI reviewer take the first crack at it after pointing it to your rules file (e.g., AGENTS) so you don't have to repeat yourself. Gemini does this fairly well, for example. https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review...
How are the architecture changes you are proposing improving the end result?
>but not being able to control the exact output worries me
Why?
Code review should be mandatory and reviewers should ask big PRs to be broken up, and its submitters to be able to defend every line of code. For when the computer is generating the code, the most important duty of the submitter is to vouch for it. To do otherwise creates the bad incentive of making others do all your QA, and nobody is going to be rewarded for that.
I just added a chapter which touches on that: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
Yeah, I think that's one of the biggest anti-patterns right now: dumping thousands of lines of agent-generated code on your team to review, which effectively delegates the real work to other people.
> Code review should be mandatory and reviewers should ask big PRs to be broken up
Always, even before all this madness. It sounds more like a function of these teams CR process rather than agents writing the code. Sometimes super large prs are necessary and I've always requested a 30 minute meeting to discuss.
I don't see this as an issue, just noise. Reduce the PR footprint. If not possible meet with the engineer(s)
Code review is now a bit like Brandolini's law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." You ultimately need a lot of buy in to spend more than 5 mins on something that took 5 seconds to produce.
I use AI in my workflow mostly for simple boilerplate, or to troubleshoot issues/docs.
I've dipped into agentic work now and again, but never been very impressed with the output (well, that there is any functioning output is insanely impressive, but it isn't code I want to be on the hook for complaining).
I hear a lot of people saying the same, but similarly a bunch of people I respect saying they barely write code anymore. It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
Anyway, really looking forward to trying some if these patterns as the book develops to see if that makes a difference. Understanding how other peopke really use these tools is a big gap for me.
One thing I rarely see mentioned is that often creating code by hand is simply faster (at least for me) than using AI. Creating a plan for AI, waiting for execution, verifying, prompting again etc. can take more time than just doing it on my own with a plan in my head (and maybe some notes). Creating something from scratch or doing advanced refactoring is almost always faster with AI, but most of my daily tasks are bugs or features that are 10% coding and 90% knowing how to do it.
> 10% coding and 90% knowing how to do it
I think this is the main point where many people’s work differs. Most of my work I know roughly what needs changing and how things are structured but I jump between codebases often enough that I can’t always remember the exact classes/functions where changes are needed. But I can vaguely gesture at those specific changes that need to be made and have the AI find the places that need changing and then I can review the result.
I rarely get the luxury of working in a single codebase for a long enough period of time to get so familiar with it that I can jump to particular functions without much thought. That means AI is usually a better starting point than me fumbling around trying to find what I think exists but I don’t know where it is.
I've heard people say that these coding agents are just tools and don't replace the thinking. That's fine but the problem for me is that the act of coding is when I do my thinking!
I'm thinking about how to solve the problem and how to express it in the programming language such that it is easy to maintain. Getting someone/something else to do that doesn't help me.
But different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Yes, it's often faster if you sit around waiting. What I will do instead is prompt the AI to create various plans, do other stuff while they do, review and approve the plans, do other stuff while multiple plans are being implemented, and then review and revise the output.
And I have the AI deal with "knowing how to do it" as well. Often it's slower to have it do enough research to know how to do it, but my time is more expensive than Claude's time, and so as long as I'm not sitting around waiting it's a net win.
I do this too, but then you need some method to handle it, because now you have to read and test and verify multiple work streams. It can become overwhelming. In the past week I had the following problems from parallel agents:
Gemini running an benchmark- everything ran smoothly for an hour. But on verification it had hallucinated the model used for judging, invalidating the whole run.
Another task used Opus and I manually specified the model to use. It still used the wrong model.
This type of hallucination has happened to me at least 4-5 times in the past fortnight using opus 4.6 and gemini-3.1-pro. GLM-5 does not seem to hallucinate so much.
So if you are not actively monitoring your agent and making the corrections, you need something else that is.
You need a harness, yes, and you need quality gates the agent can't mess with, and that just kicks the work back with a stern message to fix the problems. Otherwise you're wasting your time reviewing incomplete work.
Here is an example where the prompt was only a few hundred tokens and the output reasoning chain was correct, but the actual function call was wrong https://x.com/xundecidability/status/2005647216741105962?s=2...
Glancing at what it's doing is part of your multitasking rounds.
Also instead of just prompting, having it write a quick summary of exactly what it will do where the AI writes a plan including class names branch names file locations specific tests etc. is helpful before I hit go, since the code outline is smaller and quicker to correct.
That takes more wall clock time per agent, but gets better results, so fewer redo steps.
Here is an example where the prompt was only a few hundred tokens and the output reasoning chain was correct, but the actual function call was wrong https://x.com/xundecidability/status/2005647216741105962?s=2...
I as a human have typos too - and sometimes they're the hardest thing to catch in code review because you know what you meant.
Hopefully there is some of lint process to catch my human hallucinations and typos.
This sounds like one recipe for burnout, much like Aderal was making everyone code faster until their brain couldn’t keep up with its own backlog.
>And I have the AI deal with "knowing how to do it" as well. Often it's slower to have it do enough research to know how to do it
This is exactly the sort of future I'm afraid of. Where the people who are ostensibly hired to know how stuff works, out source that understanding to their LLMs. If you don't know how the system works while building, what are you going to when it breaks? Continue to throw your LLM at it? At what point do you just outsource your entire brain?
For me it _can_ be faster to code than to instruct but it takes me significantly less effort to write the prompt than the actual code. So a few hours of concentrates coding leave me completely drained of energy while after a few hours with the agents I still have a lot of mental energy. That's the huge difference for me and I don't want to go back.
Thats interesting. While i do get mentally tired after a session of focused coding, i feel like i have accomplished something. Using AI for coding feels similar to spending hours doom scrolling reels. Less engaging but Im drained as hell at the end.
I'd argue you still have to stay engaged, if not more-so. Its a different type of engagement. Look at you: You're the CTO now.
It's hard to be engaged when you are constantly jumping from one thing/prompt to another vs you are actually doing the work.
My way of phrasing this: I need to activate my personal transformers on my inner embeddings space to really figure what is it that I truly want to write.
I delegate to agents what I hate doing, e.g. when creating a SaaS web app, the last thing I want to waste my time on is the landing page with about/pricing/login and Stripe integration frontend/backend - I'll just tell Claude Code (with Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8 running locally on RTX Pro 6000) to make all this basic stuff for me so that I can focus on the actual core of the app. It then churns for half an hour, spews out the first version where I need to spend another half an hour to fix bugs by pointing errors to Claude Code and then in 1 hour it's all done. I can also tell it to avoid all the node.js garbage and do it all in plain HTML/JS/CSS.
The rebuttal to this would be that you can do many such tasks in parallel.
I’m not sure it’s really true in practice yet, but that would certainly be the claim.
But can you mentally "keep hold" (for lack of a better term) of those tasks that are getting executed in parallel? Honestly asking.
Because, after they're done/have finished executing, I guess you still have to "check" their output, integrate their results into the bigger project they're (supposedly) part of etc, and for me the context-switching required to do all that is mentally taxing. But maybe this only happens because my brain is not young enough, that's why I'm asking.
The type of dev who is allowing AI to do all of their work does not care about the quality of said work.
I think the difference is that you're applying a standard of correctness or personal understanding of the code you're pushing that is being relaxed in the "agentic workflows"
I have the AI integrate their results themselves. That's if anything one of the things they do best. I also have them do reviews and test their own work first before I check it, and that usually makes the remaining verification fairly quick and painless.
That’s why we won’t plan anymore or compile it’ll just execute https://jperla.com/blog/claude-electron-not-claudevm
When was the last time you tried?
I think trying agents to do larger tasks was always very hit or miss, up to about the end of last year.
In the past couple of months I have found them to have gotten a lot better (and I'm not the only one).
My experience with what coding assistants are good for shifted from:
smart autocomplete -> targeted changes/additions -> full engineering
I’m not OP but every time I post a comment with this sentiment I get told “the latest models are what you need”. If every 3 months you are saying “it’s ready as long as you use the latest model”, then it wasn’t ready 3 months ago and it’s not likely to be ready now.
To answer your question, I’ve tried both Claude code and Antigravity in the last 2 weeks and I’m still finding them struggling. AG with Gemini regularly gets stuck on simple issues and loops until I run out of requests, and Claude still just regularly goes on wild tangents not actually solving the problem.
I don’t think that’s true. Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 in Cursor have marked the big shift for me. Before that, agentic development mostly made me want to just do it myself, because it was getting stuck or going on tangents.
I think it can (and is) shifting very rapidly. Everyone is different, and I’m sure models are better at different types of work (or styles of working), but it doesn’t take much to make it too frustrating to use. Which also means it doesn’t take much to make it super useful.
> I don’t think that’s true. Claude Opus 4.5/4.6 in Cursor.
Opus 4.6 has been out for less than a month. If it was a big shift surely we'd see a massive difference over 4.5 which was november. I think this proves the point, you're not seeing seisimic shifts every 3 months and you're not even clear about which model was the fix.
> I think it can (and is) shifting very rapidly.
Shifting, maybe. But shuffling deck chairs every 3 months.
I interpreted their comment to mean 4.5 was the shift, which was nov last year. "Before that" meaning pre 4.5.
It depends on what you're handling. Frontend (not css), swagger, mundane CRUD is where it shines. Something more complex that need a bit harder calculation usually make the agents struggling.
Especially good to navigate the code if you're unfamiliar with it (the code). If you have known the code for good, you'll find it's usually faster to debug and code by yourself.
Opus 4.6 with claude code vscode extension
I thought this too and then I discovered plan mode. If you just prompt agent mode it will be terrible, but coming up with a plan first has really made a big difference and I rarely write code at all now
My workflow has become very plan-intensive... including planning of verification+test steps at the end.
Have you tried it with something like OpenSpec? Strangely, taking the time to lay out the steps in a large task helps immensely. It's the difference between the behavior you describe and just letting it run productively for segments of ten or fifteen minutes.
> Have you tried it with something like OpenSpec?
No. The parent comment said I needed a new model, which I've tried. Being told "just try something else aswell" kind of proves the point.
Agree, it’s strange, I will just assume that the people who say this are building react apps. I still have so much ”certainly, I should not do this in a completely insane way, let me fix that” … -400+2. It’s not always, and it is better than it was, but that’s it.
I'm an ML engineer, so it's mostly been setting up data processing/training code in PyTorch, if that helps.
At this point though, after Claude C Compiler, you've got to give us more details to better understand the dichotomy. What do you consider simple issues?
> At this point though, after Claude C Compiler,
Perfect example. You mean the C compiler that literally failed to compile a hello world [0] (which was given in it's readme)?
> What do you consider simple issues?
Hallucinating APIs for well documented libraries/interfaces, ignoring explicit instructions for how to do things, and making very simple logic errors in 30-100 line scripts.
As an example, I asked Claude code to help me with a Roblox game last weekend, and specifically asked it to "create a shop GUI for <X> which scales with the UI, and opens when you press E next to the character". It proceeded to create a GUI with absolute sizings, get stuck on an API hallucination for handling input, and also, when I got it unstuck, it didn't actually work.
[0] https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/1
Claude C compiler is 100k LOC that doesn’t do anything useful, and cost $20k plus the cost of an expert engineer creating a custom harness and babysitting it.
But the most important thing is that they were reverse engineering gcc by using it as an oracle. And it had gcc and thousands of other c compilers in its training set.
So if you are a large corporation looking to copy GPL code so that you can use it without worrying about the license, and the project you want to copy is a text transformer with a rigorously defined set of inputs and outputs, have at it.
> When was the last time you tried?
Pretty recently (a couple weeks ago). I give agentic workflows a go every couple of weeks or so.
I should say, I don't find them abysmal, but I tend to work in codebases where I understand them, and the patterns really well. The use cases I've tried so far, do sort of work, just not yet at least, faster than I'm able to actual write the code myself.
> My experience with what coding assistants are good for shifted from:
> smart autocomplete -> targeted changes/additions -> full engineering
Define "full engineering". Because if you say "full engineering" I would expect the agent to get some expected product output details as input and produce all by itself the right implementation for the context (i.e. company) it lives in.
I agree that "full engineering" was a bit broad. I should probably have said something like "agent-only coding"?
I.e. the point where the agent writes all the code and you just verify.
The "you just verify" part can take indeed a lot of steering and hand-holding to get the right implementation for the current company/department/project context. Otherwise you might be just generating tech debt at scale.
> I've dipped into agentic work now and again, but never been very impressed with the output (well, that there is any functioning output is insanely impressive, but it isn't code I want to be on the hook for complaining).
> I hear a lot of people saying the same, but similarly a bunch of people I respect saying they barely write code anymore. It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
It squares up just fine.
You ever read a blog post or comment and think "Yeah, this is definitely AI generated"? If you can recognise it, would you accept a blog post, reviewed by you, for your own blog/site?
I won't; I'll think "eww" and rewrite.
The developers with good AI experiences don't get the same "eww" feeling when reading AI-generated code. The developers with poor AI experiences get that "eww" feeling all the time when reviewing AI code and decide not to accept the code.
Well, that's my theory anyway.
I also will rewrite both text and code created by Gen AI. I've found the best workflow for me is not to refine what I've written, but instead to use it to help me get over humps and/or crank through some of the drudgery. And then I go back and edit, fixing any issues I spot and to reshape it to be in my own voice.
I do this with code too.
> It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
In my experience, this heavily depends on the task, and there's a massive chasm between tasks where it's a good and bad fit. I can definitely imagine people working only on one side of this chasm and being perplexed by the other side.
My experience is that the first iteration output from a single agent is not what I want to be on the hook for. What squares it for me with "not writing code anymore" is the iterative process to improve outputs:
1) Having review loops between agents (spawn separate "reviewer" agents) and clear tests / eval criteria improved results quite a bit for me. 2) Reviewing manually and giving instructions for improvements is necessary to have code I can own
Is that… actually faster than just doing it yourself, tho? Like, “I could write the right thing, or I could have this robot write the wrong thing and then nag it til it corrects itself” seems to suggest a fairly obvious choice.
I’ve yet to see these things do well on anything but trivial boilerplate.
In my experience, sometimes. Not that often, depends on the task.
The benefit is I can keep some things ticking over while I’m in meetings, to be honest.
Think of it like installing Linux. The first time it's absolutely not worth it from a time perspective. But after you've installed it once, you can reuse that installation, and eventually it makes sense and becomes second nature. Eventually that time investment pays dividends. Just like Linux tho, no one's going to force to you to install it and you'll probably go on to have a fine career without ever having touched the stuff.
I was in the same boat as you until I saw DHH post about how he’s changed his use of agents. In his talk with Lex Fridman his approach was similar to mine and it really felt like a kernel of sanity amongst the hype. So when he said he’s changed his approach I had another look. I’m using agents (Claude code) every day now. I still write code every day too. (So does Dax Raad from OpenCode to throw a bit more weight behind this stance). I’m not convinced the models can own a production code base and that therefore engineers need to maintain their skills sufficiently to be responsible. I find agents helpful for a lot of stuff, usually heavily patterned code with a lot of prior art. I find CC consistently sucks at writing polars code. I honestly don’t enjoy using agents at all and I don’t think anyone can honestly claim they know how this is going to shake out. But I feel by using the tools myself I have a much stronger sense of reality amongst the hype.
I strongly agree with that last statement—I hate using agents because their code smells awful even if it works. But I have to use them now because otherwise I’m going to wake up one day and be 100% obsolete and never even notice how it happened.
I still write code but do not push everything off to the agent. Try my best to write small tasks. ~20% of the time I have to get in there. If someone says they're absolutely not writing a line of code they must have amazing guardrails.
>It feels a little tricky to square these up sometimes.
I don’t think you have to square them because those sentiments are coming from different people. They are also coming from people at different points along the adoption curve. If you are struggling and you see other people struggling at the beginning of the adoption curve it can be quite difficult difficult to understand someone who is further along and does not appear to be struggling.
I think a lot of folks who have struggled with these tools do so because both critics and boosters create unrealistic expectations.
What I recommend is you keep trying. This is a new skill set. It is a different skill set. Which other skills that existed in the past remain necessary is not known.
I've experimented with agentic coding/engineering a lot recently. My observation is that software that is easily tested are perfect for this sort of agentic loop.
In one of my experiments I had the simple goal of "making Linux binaries smaller to download using better compression" [1]. Compression is perfect for this. Easily validated (binary -> compress -> decompress -> binary) so each iteration should make a dent otherwise the attempt is thrown out.
Lessons I learned from my attempts:
- Do not micro-manage. AI is probably good at coming up with ideas and does not need your input too much
- Test harness is everything, if you don't have a way of validating the work, the loop will go stray
- Let the iterations experiment. Let AI explore ideas and break things in its experiment. The iteration might take longer but those experiments are valuable for the next iteration
- Keep some .md files as scratch pad in between sessions so each iteration in the loop can learn from previous experiments and attempts
[1] https://github.com/mohsen1/fesh
You have to have really good tests as it fucks up in strange ways people don't (because I think experienced programmers run loops in their brain as they code)
Good news - agents are good at open ended adding new tests and finding bugs. Do that. Also do unit tests and playwright. Testing everything via web driving seems insane pre agents but now its more than doable.
"Test harness is everything, if you don't have a way of validating the work, the loop will go stray"
This is the most important piece to using AI coding agents. They are truly magical machines that can make easy work of a large number of development, general purpose computing, and data collection tasks, but without deterministic and executable checks and tests, you can't guarantee anything from one iteration of the loop to the next.
the .md scratch pad point is underrated, and the format matters more than people realize.
summaries ("tried X, tried Y, settled on Z") are better than nothing, but the next iteration can mostly reconstruct them from test results anyway. what's actually irreplaceable is the constraint log: "approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms on target hardware" means the agent doesn't re-propose B the next session. without it, every iteration rediscovers the same dead ends.
ended up splitting it into decisions.md and rejections.md. counter-intuitively, rejections.md turned out to be the more useful file. the decisions are visible in the code. the rejections are invisible — and invisible constraints are exactly what agents repeatedly violate.
This is the underrated insight in the whole thread. 'Approach B rejected because latency spikes above N ms' is the kind of context that saves hours of re-exploration every new session.
The problem I kept hitting was that flat markdown constraint logs don't scale past ~50 entries. The agent has to re-read the entire log to know what was already tried, which eats context window and slows generation. And once you have multiple agents in parallel, each maintaining their own constraint log, you get drift - agent A rejects approach B, agent C re-proposes it because it never saw agent A's log.
What worked for me was moving constraint logs to append-only log blocks that agents query through MCP rather than re-read as prose. I've been using ctlsurf for this - the agent appends 'approach B rejected, latency > N ms' to a log block, and any agent can query query_log(action='approach_rejected') to see what's been ruled out. State store handles 'which modules are claimed' as a key-value lookup.
Structured queries mean agents don't re-read the whole history - they ask specific questions about what's been tried.
The test harness point is the one that really sticks for me too. We've been using agentic loops for browser automation work, and the domain has a natural validation signal: either the browser session behaves the way a real user would, or it doesn't. That binary feedback closes the loop really cleanly.
The tricky part in our case is that "behaves correctly" has two layers - functional (did it navigate correctly?) and behavioral (does it look human to detection systems?). Agents are fine with the first layer but have no intuition for the second. Injecting behavioral validation into the loop was the thing that actually made it useful.
The .md scratch pad between sessions is underrated. We ended up formalizing it into a short decisions log - not a summary of what happened, just the non-obvious choices and why. The difference between "we tried X" and "we tried X, it failed because Y, so we use Z instead" is huge for the next session.
What are you developing that technology for?
browser automation at scale - specifically the problem of running many isolated browser sessions that each look like distinct, real users to detection systems. the behavioral validation layer I mentioned is the part that makes agentic loops actually useful for this: the agent needs to know not just "did the task succeed" but "did it succeed without triggering signals that would get the session flagged".
the interesting engineering problem is that the two feedback loops run on different timescales - functional feedback is immediate (did the click work?) but behavioral feedback is lagged and probabilistic (the session might get flagged 10 requests from now based on something that happened 5 requests ago). teaching an agent to reason about that second loop is the unsolved part.
so spam?
fair question. i shared a technical experience because it was directly relevant to the test harness discussion - the behavioral vs functional validation layers, the lagged feedback problem. if that reads as promotion, i get it, but it wasn't the intent. the engineering problem is real regardless of who's solving it.
They weren't saying your _post_ was spam. They're saying you build tools for spammers.
Because that's what they'll be used for.
I wish there was a little more color in the Testing and QA section. While I agree with this:
there is no mention at all about LLMs' tendency to write tautological tests--tests that pass because they are defined to pass. Or, tests that are not at all relevant or useful, and are ultimately noise in the codebase wasting cycles on every CI run. Sometimes to pass the tests the model might even hardcode a value in a unit test itself!IMO this section is a great place to show how we as humans can guide the LLM toward a rigorous test suite, rather than one that has a lot of "coverage" but doesn't actually provide sound guarantees about behavior.
Do you have an example of the tautological tests you're referring to? What comes to mind to me is genuinely logically tautological tests, like "assert(true || expectedResult == actualResult)" which is a mistake I don't even expect modern AI coding tools to make. But I suspect you're talking about a subtler type of test which at first glance appears useful but actually isn't.
Among many other possible examples, here are a few [0] from Ruby that I've seen in the wild before LLMs, and still see today spat out by LLMs.
0: https://www.codewithjason.com/examples-pointless-rspec-tests...
I do see agents pop out tests that look like this occasionally:
If I catch them I tell them not to and they remove it again, but a few do end up slipping through.I'm not sure that they're particularly harmful any more though. It used to be that they added extra weight to your test suite, meaning when you make changes you have to update pointless tests.
But if the agent is updating the pointless tests for you I can afford a little bit of unnecessary testing bloat.
I don’t love tests like that either, but I’ve seen a lot of them (long before the generative AI era) and heard reasonable people make arguments in favor of them.
Admittedly, in the absence of halfway competent static type checking, it does seem like a good way to prevent what would be a very bad regression. It doesn’t seem worse than tests which check that a certain property is non-null (when that’s a vital business requirement and you’re using a language without a competent type system).
I don’t have examples but I have an LLM driven project with like…2500 tests and I regularly need to prune:
* no-op tests
* unit tests labeled as integration tests
* skipped tests set to skip because they were failing and the agent didn’t want to fix them
* tests that can never fail
Probably at any given time the tests are 2-4% broken. I’d say about 10% of one-shot tests are bogus if you’re just working w spec + chat and don’t have extra testing harnesses.
For example, you might write a concurrency test, and the agent will cheerfully remove the concurrency and announce that it passes. They get so hung up on making things work in a narrow sense that they lose track of the purpose.
Yes. And, a bad test -- that passes because it's defined to pass -- is _much worse_ than no test at all. It makes you think an edge case is "covered" with a meaningful check.
Worse: once you have one "bad apple" in your pile of tests, it decreases trust in the _whole batch of tests_. Each time a test passes, you have to think if it's a bad test...
That's where mutation testing becomes even more valuable. If the test still passes after the code has been mutated, then you may want to look deeper, because it's a sign that the test is not good.
This seems it should be very easy to validate. Force the AI to make minimal changes to the code under test, which makes a single (or as few as possible) test fail as a result. If it can't make a test fail at all, it should be useless.
Agreed, and that's why I think adding some example prompts and ideas to the Testing section would be helpful. A vanilla-prompted LLM, in my experience, is very unreliable at adding tests that fail when the changes are reverted.
Many times I've observed that the tests added by the model simply pass as part of the changes, but still pass even when those changes are no longer applied.
I had an example in that section but it got picked apart by pedants (who had good points) so I removed it. I plan to add another soon. You can still see it in the changelog: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
This is essentially dual to the idea behind mutation testing, and should be trivial to do with a mutation testing framework in place (track whether a given test catches mutants, or more sophisticated: whether it catches the exact same mutants as some other test).
That's part of the reason I like red/green TDD - you make the agent show that the test fails before the implementation and passes afterwards.
It can still cheat, but it's less likely to cheat.
> we as humans can guide the LLM toward a rigorous test suite, rather than one that has a lot of "coverage" but doesn't actually provide sound guarantees about behavior.
I have a hard enough time getting humans to write tests like this…
These lessons get obliterated with every new LLM generation. Like how LangChain started on stupid models with small context, creating some crazy architecture around it to bypass their limitations that got completely obliterated when GPT-3.5 was released, yet people still use it and overcomplicate things. Rather look at where the puck is going, we might soon not need more than a single agent to do everything given context size keeps increasing, agent can use more tools and we might get some in-call context cleanup at some point as well that would allow an agent to spin forever instead of calling subagents due to context size limitations.
I'm trying to include patterns that work independently of model releases.
It's tricky though. Take "red/green TDD" for example - it's perfectly possible that models will start defaulting to doing that anyway pretty soon.
In that case it's only three words so it doesn't feel hugely wasteful if it turns out not to be necessary - and there's still value in understanding what it means even if you no longer have to explicitly tell the agents to do it.
The biggest takeaway for me from LLMs is that the implementation details no longer. If you have a sufficiently detailed tests and requirements, there is going to be a robot that will roll the dice until it fits the tests and requirements.
It’ll all be a ClaudeVM. No code. https://jperla.com/blog/claude-electron-not-claudevm
I see a lot of people complaining that every day there are 100 new frameworks for “agent teams”, prompting styles, workflows, and everyone insists theirs is the best for one reason or another. It reminds me a lot of early software engineering: every team had its own way of doing things, we experimented with tons of methodologies (waterfall, agile, etc.), and over time a few patterns became widely adopted (scrum, PM roles, architects, tickets, rituals). It feels like we’re in that same messy exploration phase right now.
And actually, these tools actually work, , because 99% of people still don’t really know how to prompt agents well and end up doing things like “pls fix this, it’s not working”.
One thing that worked well for us was going back to how a human team would approach it: write a product spec first (expected behavior, constraints, acceptance criteria, etc), use AI to refine that spec, and only then hand it to an opinionated flow of agents that reflect a human team to implement.
The "human in the loop at key checkpoints" pattern has been the most practically useful for us. We found that giving the agent full autonomy end-to-end produces subtly broken code that passes tests but violates implicit invariants you never thought to write down. Short loops with a human sanity check at decision forks catches that class of failure early.
The thing I keep wrestling with is where exactly to place those checkpoints. Too frequent and you've just built a slow pair programmer. Too infrequent and you're doing expensive archaeology to figure out where it went sideways. We've landed on "before any irreversible action" as a useful heuristic, but that requires the agent to have some model of what's irreversible, which is its own can of worms.
Has anyone found a principled way to communicate implicit codebase conventions to an agent beyond just dumping a CLAUDE.md or similar file? We've tried encoding constraints as linter rules but that only catches surface stuff, not architectural intent.
A lot of this is just things that high-functioning human teams were already doing: automate testing, explain your PRs to guide reviewers, demoing work, not just throwing bad code over the wall during code review, etc.
There's a recurring theme in these agentic engineering threads that is worth calling out: the lessons, are almost always stated as universal – but are deeply dependent on team size, code base maturity, test coverage, and risk tolerance. What gets presented as a “win” for a well instrumented backend service could easily guide those working on UI-heavy or old code down the wrong path. The art of this might be less about discovering the correct pattern, and more about truthfully declaring when a pattern applies.
That's a good call out. The reason I'm doing this as a website and not a book is that this stuff changes all the time and I want to update it, so one of the things I'll try to do is add notes about when and where each pattern works as those constraints become clear.
I work as a consultant so I navigate different codebases, old to new, typescript to javascript, massive to small, frontend only to full stack.
Claude Code experience is massively different depending on the codebase.
Good E2E strongly typed codebase? Can one shot any feature, some small QA, some polishing and it's usually good to ship.
Plain javascript? Object oriented? Injection? Overall magic? Claude can work there but is not a pleasant experience and I wouldn't say it accelerates you that much.
"...typescript to javascript"
Country AND Western!
We are going to start seeing that be the primary selection criterion. Pick a stack that agents are good at.
Agreed. AND some are universal -- right now, agentic workflows benefit from independent source-of-truth checkins A LOT.
A lot of Simon's tools are making harnesses for this so it can get integrated:
showboat - create a demo, validate the code generates the demo. This is making a documentation source of truth
rodney - validate visually and with navigation that things work like you expect
red-green tests are conceptually the same - once we have these tests then the agent can loop more successfully.
So, I think there are some "universals" or at least "universals for now" that do transcend team/deployment specificity
Today I gave a lecture to my undergraduate data structures students about the evolution of CPU and GPU architectures since the late 1970s. The main themes:
- Through the last two decades of the 20th century, Moore’s Law held and ensured that more transistors could be packed into next year’s chips that could run at faster and faster clock speeds. Software floated on a rising tide of hardware performance so writing fast code wasn’t always worth the effort.
- Power consumption doesn’t vary with transistor density but varies with the cube of clock frequency, so by the early 2000s Intel hit a wall and couldn’t push the clock above ~4GHz with normal heat dissipation methods. Multi-core processors were the only way to keep the performance increasing year after year.
- Up to this point the CPU could squeeze out performance increases by parallelizing sequential code through clever scheduling tricks (and compilers could provide an assist by unrolling loops) but with multiple cores software developers could no longer pretend that concurrent programming was only something that academics and HPC clusters cared about.
CS curricula are mostly still stuck in the early 2000s, or at least it feels that way. We teach big-O and use it to show that mergesort or quicksort will beat the pants off of bubble sort, but topics like Amdahl’s Law are buried in an upper-level elective when in fact it is much more directly relevant to the performance of real code, on real present-day workloads, than a typical big-O analysis.
In any case, I used all this as justification for teaching bitonic sort to 2nd and 3rd year undergrads.
My point here is that Simon’s assertion that “code is cheap” feels a lot like the kind of paradigm shift that comes from realizing that in a world with easily accessible massively parallel compute hardware, the things that matter for writing performant software have completely shifted: minimizing branching and data dependencies produces code that looks profoundly different than what most developers are used to. e.g. running 5 linear passes over a column might actually be faster than a single merged pass if those 5 passes touch different memory and the merged pass has to wait to shuffle all that data in and out of the cache because it doesn’t fit.
What all this means for the software development process I can’t say, but the payoff will be tremendous (10-100x, just like with properly parallelized code) for those who can see the new paradigm first and exploit it.
> I don't let LLMs write text for my blog.
Thank you Simon and I'm sure you would quickly fall off from #1 blogger on HN if you did. I insist on this for myself as well.
Somehow we are all getting really good at detecting "written by AI" with primal intuition.
I've recently got into red/greed TDD with claude code, and I have to agree that it seems like the right way to go.
As my projects were growing in complexity and scope, I found myself worrying that we were building things that would subtly break other parts of the application. Because of the limited context windows, it was clear that after a certain size, Claude kind of stops understanding how the work you're doing interacts with the rest of the system. Tests help protect against that.
Red/green TDD specifically ensures that the current work is quite focused on the thing that you're actually trying to accomplish, in that you can observe a concrete change in behaviour as a result of the change, with the added benefit of growing the test suite over time.
It's also easier than ever to create comprehensive integration test suites - my most valuable tests are tests that test entire user facing workflows with only UI elements, using a real backend.
Red/green is especially good with claude because even now with opus 4.6, claude can throw out a little comment like “//Implementation on hold until X/Y/Z: return { true }” and proceed to completely skip implementation based on the inline skip comment for a longgg time. It used to do this aggressively even in the tests, but by and large red/green prompting helps immensely - it tells the agent “think of failing tests as SUCCESS right now” - then you’ll get lots of them.
I’ve always been partial to integration tests too. Hand coding made integration tests feel bad; you’re almost doubling the code output in some cases - especially if you end up needing to mock a bunch of servers. Nowadays that’s cheap, which is super helpful.
Yeah, I've always _preferred_ integration tests, but the cost of building them was so great. Now the cost is effectively eliminated, and if you make a change that genuinely does affect an integration test (changing the text on a button, for example) it's easy to smart-find-and-replace and fix them up. So I'm using them a lot more.
The only problem is... they still take much longer to _run_ than unit tests, and they do tend to be more flaky (although Claude is helpful in fixing flaky tests too). I'm grateful for the extra safety, but it makes deployments that much slower. I've not really found a solution to that part beyond parallelising.
Granted it doesn't always pay attention to Claude.md but one thing I've done is in my block of rules it must always follow is to never leave something unimplemented w/ placeholders unless explicitly told to do so. It's made this mostly go away for me.
I find StrongDM's Dark Factory principles more immediately actionable (sorry, Simon!): https://factory.strongdm.ai/principles
Not sure there's anything to be sorry for, he literally wrote about it a few weeks ago:
https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/7/software-factory/
I second that, sometimes it's defensibly worth throwing token fuel at the problem and validate as you go.
I primarily use AI for understanding codebases myself. My prompt is:
"deeply understand this codebase, clearly noting async/sync nature, entry points and external integration. Once understood prepare for follow up questions from me in a rapid fire pattern, your goal is to keep responses concise and always cite code snippets to ensure responses are factual and not hallucinated. With every response ask me if this particular piece of knowledge should be persistent into codebase.md"
Both the concise and structure nature (code snippets) help me gain knowledge of the entire codebase - as I progressively ask complex questions on the codebase.
I tried a slight variation of your prompt after reading this. It worked marvelously. Quick, correct answers instead of waiting for it to do exploration for each answer.
I just started a new chapter partly inspired by this comment thread - anti-patterns: things NOT to do.
So far I only have one: Inflicting unreviewed code on collaborators, aka dumping a thousand line PR without even making sure it works first https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
Strongly agree with the patterns list, but I think the order matters: observability and evals should come before sophistication.
Teams jump straight to multi-agent setups because it feels "advanced," then spend weeks debugging ghosts. A boring single-agent flow with strict tool contracts, replayable traces, and a small regression suite beats a clever architecture you can't reason about.
My rule of thumb now: if I can't explain why an agent made a decision from logs alone, it's not production-ready yet.
I have come to the same conclusion. I'm thinking it more like "raising" these subagents via iterations and tuning until they are "grown-up" and basically become reliable. Thats why even though I can setup a team pretty easily via claude code, I don't see the benefit until the would be team members are reliable. Once the main subagents are solid, we can move on to build a team by pointing them to these subagents - atleast thats what I'm thinking in my one-step-at-time slow way. Most probably overcautious and maybe even wrong but if I'm seeing a subagent doing weird stuff across many executions, I can't build much in terms of layers on top of it.
I contribute to an open source spec based project management tool. I spend about a day back and forth iterating on a spec, using ai to refine the spec itself. Sometimes feeding it in and out of Claude/gemini telling each other where the feedback has come from. The spec is the value. Using the ai pm tool I break it down into n tasks and sub tasks and dependencies. I then trigger Claude in teams mode to accomplish the project. It can be left alone over night. I wake up in the morning with n prs merged.
The code review bottleneck is even worse on edge devices. We ship Jetson-based systems running local AI agents, and the 'cheap code' problem compounds when you factor in ARM-specific bugs and thermal constraints that don't show up in testing. Learned the hard way: test coverage on x86 means nothing when your agent hits OOM on a Xavier at 3AM because someone let the LLM generate unbounded batch sizes.
Honestly the best thing about Simon's writing is he just shows you what works instead of inventing a whole taxonomy. Half the "patterns" people talk about are just... writing good prompts and checking the output? Like we've been doing error handling and retries forever, now its an Agentic Pattern(tm).
have loved simon wilson for a long long time and still do. These patterns are all out of date by at least a year - the best devs I know were using Claude 3.5 like this
Good. If they worked with Sonnet 3.5 a year ago that means they have sticking power and are worth writing about today.
Absolutely great work. I have been mostly just thinking about what you are already practicing. I think your site will become an invaluable source for software engineers who want to responsibly apply AI in their development flow.
For a high level description of what this new way of engineering is about: https://substack.com/@shreddd/p-189554031
It baffles me how skeptical people here are of AI-assisted programming. If you don't see productivity gains I feel you're in deep denial.
It's true that in my company we're not building rockets or defense systems, maybe you guys are and in those scenarios it's less useful. But for typical LoB and/or consumer-facing software, AI is crushing it. Where I used to need 3 devs, now I just need one (and the support team around it: PM, BA, QA, Designer). For my business, AI has been a game changer.
The patterns in the article might be a starter, but there's so much more to cover:
agents role (Orchestrator, QA etc.), agents communication, thinking patterns, iteration patterns, feature folders, time-aware changelog tracking, prompt enforcing, real time steering.
We might really need a public Wiki for that (C2 [1] style)
[1]: https://wiki.c2.com/
Is "Agentic Engineering" is the new name for "Agent Experience"? If so, and even though I love Simon's contributions, there are many other guides to making codebases more welcoming to agents...
Shameless plug: I wrote one. https://marmelab.com/blog/2026/01/21/agent-experience.html
I hadn't heard that term before, is it widely used?
https://agentexperience.ax/ describes it as "refers to the holistic experience AI agents have when interacting with a product, platform, or system" which feels to me like a different concept to figuring out patterns for effectively using coding agents as a software engineer.
There was a mention of using agents to build projects into WASM. I've had the best luck telling it to use zig to compile to webassembly. It shortens the time to completion by a significant amount.
That's a great tip, thanks! I did not know Zig could do this.
You can "pip install ziglang" and get the right version for different platforms too.
What none of these patterns address is the human side. What happens when someone actually uses an AI agent to do the work of their entire team?
Not hypothetically -- like, actually does it. Ships the quarterly analysis, writes the strategy memo, builds the model. All in a fraction of the time. And then management finds out.
There's a short film that nails this exact scenario and it's weirdly accurate for anyone who's worked in a large org: https://youtu.be/O5FFkHUdKyE
The engineering patterns will keep evolving. But the harder problem is what organizations do when one person with an AI agent outperforms a department. That's not a technical problem -- it's a people problem.
Linear walkthrough: I ask my agents to give me a numbered tree. Controlling tree size specifies granularity. Numbering means it's simple to refer to points for discussion.
Other things that I feel are useful:
- Very strict typing/static analysis
- Denying tool usage with a hook telling the agent why+what they should do (instead of simple denial, or dangerously accepting everything)
- Using different models for code review
For web apps, explictly asking the agent to build in sensible checkpoints and validate at the checkpoint using Playwright has been very successful for me so far. It prevents the agent from strating off course and struggling to find its way back. That and always using plan mode first, and reviewing the plan for evidence of sensible checkpoints. /opusplan to save tokens!
Hoarding is becoming an epidemic mental disease in the society of abundance. I don’t know what the solution would be.
https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
Personally my plan is to hoard more.
Very much agree with the idea of red/green TDD and have seen really good results during agentic coding. I've found adding a linting step in between increases efficiency as well and fails a bit faster. So it becomes..
Test fail -> implement -> linter -> test pass
Another idea I've thought about using is docs driven development. So the instructions might look like..
Write doc for feat/bug > test fail > implement > lint > test pass
The code review bottleneck point resonates a lot. When agents can generate PRs in minutes, the human review step becomes the critical bottleneck — and it doesn't scale with generation speed. The teams I've seen handle this best treat agent output like a junior dev's work: smaller atomic commits, mandatory test coverage as a gate, and explicit reviewer checklists focused on logic rather than syntax. The shift is from "does this look right" to "does this behave correctly under these conditions."
Ahh, I tend to find software based engineering skills and workflows as the agentic engineering patterns.
I distilled multiple software books into these flows and skills. With more books to come.
Here is an example https://github.com/ryanthedev/code-foundations
I really like the idea of agent coding patterns. This feels like it could be expanded easily with more content though. Off the top of my head:
- tell the agent to write a plan, review the plan, tell the agent to implement the plan
- allow the agent to “self discover” the test harness (eg. “Validate this c compiler against gcc”)
- queue a bunch of tasks with // todo … and yolo “fix all the todo tasks”
- validate against a known output (“translate this to rust and ensure it emits the same byte or byte output as you go”)
- pick a suitable language for the task (“go is best for this task because I tried several languages and it did the best for this domain in go”)
This sort of thing is available using utilities like spec kit/spec kitty/etc. But yes it does make it do better, including writing its own checklists so that it comes back to the tasks it identified early on without distraction.
I see where Simon is coming from with these patterns but I wonder where large software companies stand regarding their agentic engineering practices? Is Google creating in-house code using agents against its monorepo? Has Microsoft outsourced Windows source code advancements to a dark factory yet?
Yesterday I wrote a post about exactly this. Software development, as the act of manually producing code, is dying. A new discipline is being born. It is much closer to proper engineering.
Like an engineer overseeing the construction of a bridge, the job is not to lay bricks. It is to ensure the structure does not collapse.
The marginal cost of code is collapsing. That single fact changes everything.
https://nonstructured.com/zen-of-ai-coding/
> wrote
Quite a heavy-lifting word here. You understand why people flagged that post right? It's painfully non-human. I'm all for utilizing LLM, but I highly suggest you read Simon's posts. He's obviously a heavy AI user, but even his blog posts aren't that inorganic and that's why he became the new HN blog babe.
[0]: I personally believe Simon writes with his own voice, but who knows?
How paranoid do you want to get? Simone's written enough, such that you could just feed his blog to AI and ask it to write in his voice. Which, taken to the logical extreme, means that the last time he went to visit OpenAI, he was captured, and locked in a dungeon, and his online presence is now entirely AI with the right prompt. In fact, that's happened to everyone on this site, and we're all LLMs just predicting the next word at each other.
There's no actual way to determine if any words are from a silicon token generator or meat-based generator. It's not AI, it's human! Emdash. You're absolutely right!
system failure.
We have the entire web built on technical debt and LLMs mostly trained on that, what could go wrong? Cost will reside somewhere else if not on code
This is such a strange take. Your words remind me of past crypto hype cycles, where people pushed web3.0 and NFT FOMO hysteria.
Engineering is the practical application of science and mathematics to solve problems. It sounds like you're maybe describing construction management instead. I'm not denying that there's value here, but what you're espousing seems divorced from reality. Good luck vibecoding a nontrivial actuarial model, then having it to pass the laundry list of reviews and having large firms actually pick it up.
> This is such a strange take. Your words remind me of past crypto hype cycles, where people pushed web3.0 and NFT FOMO hysteria.
Thats a little harsh. I think most everyone would agree we're in a transformative time for engineering. Sure theres hype, but the adoption in our profession (assuming you're an engineer) isn't waning.
> It is much closer to proper engineering.
I would not equate software engineering to "proper" engineering insofar as being uttered in the same sentence as mechanical, chemical, or electrical engineering.
The cost of code is collapsing because web development is not broadly rigorous, robust software was never a priority, and everyone knows it. The people complaining that AI isn't good enough yet don't grasp that neither are many who are in the profession currently.
> The people complaining that AI isn't good enough yet don't grasp that neither are many who are in the profession currently.
I think the externalities are being ignored. Having time and money to train engineers is expensive. Having all the data of your users being stolen is a slap in the wrist.
So replacing those bad worekrs with AI is fine. Unless you remove the incentives to be fast instead of good, then yeah AI can be good enough for some cases.
Indeed, it's like those complaining self-driving cars occasionally crash when their crash rates are up to 90% less than humans . . .
It's not pleasant to read this.
It's not profound. It's not profound when I read the exact same awed blog post about how "agentic" is the future and you don't even need to know code anymore.It wasn't profound the first time, and it's even dumber that people keep repeating it - maybe they take all the time they saved not writing, and use it to not read.
You didn't write that and you shouldn't believe that you did.
Stop putting forth your AI generated blog posts as your own work.
Agree. This is a transition from being "in" the loop to being "on" the loop.
The formal engineering disciplines are not defined by the construction vs design distinction so much as the regulatory gates they have passed and the ethical burdens they shoulder for society's benefit.
https://www.slater.dev/2025/09/its-time-to-license-software-...
The best thing I read in this was "Hoard things you know how to do" > basically get an LLM to mutate an existing function you know is 1. well written and 2. works. If you have many such components you're still assembling code rapidly but using building blocks you actually understand in depth, rather than getting an LLM to shit out something verbose.
Isn’t this pretty much how everyone uses agents?
Feels like it’s a lot of words to say what amounts to make the agent do the steps we know works well for building software.
I think most of these writeups are packaging familiar engineering moves into LLM-shaped language. In my experience the real value is operational: explicit tool interfaces, idempotent steps, checkpoints and durable workflows run in Temporal or Airflow, with Playwright for browser tasks and a vector DB for state so you can replay and debug failures. The tradeoff is extra latency, token cost and engineering overhead, so expect to spend most of your time on retries, schema validation and monitoring rather than on clever prompt hacks, and use function calling or JSON schemas to keep tool outputs predictable.
> I think most of these writeups are packaging familiar engineering moves into LLM-shaped language.
They are, and that's deliberate.
Something I'm finding neat about working with coding agents is that most of the techniques that get better results out of agents are techniques that work for larger teams of humans too.
If you've already got great habits around automated testing, documentation, linting, red/green TDD, code review, clean atomic commits etc - you're going to get much better results out of coding agents as well.
My devious plan here is to teach people good software engineering while tricking them into thinking the book is about AI.
G is posting this slop so Anthropic sends him his dinner invitation this month, give him a break.
PSA: This is sponsored by Augment code.
Only until March 6th, I'm selling site-wide sponsorship a week at a time. Those sponsors get no influence over what I write about at all - I started this entire guide without even mentioning it to them.
Thanks, I did not mean it as an accusation of bias. Just something I saw on the page and shared. Appreciate you writing this and sharing.
I'd like to plug https://github.com/hsaliak/std_slop/blob/main/docs/mail_mode... my coding harness (std::slop)'s mail model (a poor name i admit). I believe this solves a fundamental problem of accummulating errors along with code in your project.
This brings the Linux Kernel style patch => discuss => merge by maintainer workflow to agents. You get bisect safe patches you 'review' and provide feedback and approve.
While a SKILL could mimic this, being built in allows me to place access control and 'gate' destructive actions so the LLM is forced to follow this workflow. Overall, this works really well for me. I am able to get bisect-safe patches, and then review / re-roll them until I get exactly what I want, then I merge them.
Sure this may be the path to software factories, but it scales 'enough' for medium size projects and I've been able to build in a way that I maintain strong understanding of the code that goes in.
Is there a market for this like OOP patterns that used to sell in the 90s?
The underlying technology is still improving at a rapid pace. Many of last year's tricks are a waste of tokens now. Some ideas seem less fragile: knowing two things allows you to imagine the confluence of the two so you know to ask. Other things are less so: I'm a big fan of the test-based iteration loop; it is so effective that I suspect almost all users have arrived at it independently[0]. But the emergent properties of models are so hard to actually imagine. A future sufficiently-smart intelligence may take a different approach that is less search and more proof. I wouldn't bet on it, but I've been surprised too many times over the last few years.
0: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-12-01/Grounding_Yo...
It definitely feels like everyone is trying to sell you something that is supposed to help you build rather than actually building useful stuff.
Which is oddly close to how investment advice is given. If these techniques work so well, why give them up for free?
everybody's trying to become the next Uncle Bob
I mainly work with documents as a white collar worker but have vibe coded a few bits.
The thing I keep coming back to is that it's all code. Almost all white collar professions have at least some key outputs in code. Whether you are a store manager filling out reports or a marketing firm or a teacher, there is so much code.
This means you can give claude code a branded document template, fill it out, include images etc. and uploaded to our cloud hosting.
With this same guidance and taste, I'm doing close to the work of 5 people.
Setup: Claude code with full API access to all my digital spaces + tmux running 3-5 tasks in parallel
White colar work is just a lucky place to be, 99% of it is completely made up, there's people doing nothing, and people doing work of 10 people, does not matter, the work itself has no impact on anything.
A nice way to realize why this AI wave hasn't produced massive economy growth, it is mostly touching parts of economy which are parasitic and can't really create growth.
the tautological test problem someone mentioned, i've found the easiest fix is to literally make the test fail first before letting the agent fix it
like don't ask it to "write tests for this function", instead give it a function that's deliberately broken in a specific way, make it write a test that catches that bug, verify the test actually fails, THEN fix the function
this forces the test to be meaningful because it has to detect a real failure mode. if the agent can't make the test fail by breaking the code, the test is useless
the other thing that helps is being really specific about edge cases upfront. instead of "write tests for this API endpoint", say "write tests that verify it returns 400 when the email field is missing, returns 409 when the email already exists, returns 422 when the email is malformed" etc
agents are weirdly good at implementing specific test scenarios but terrible at figuring out what scenarios actually matter. which honestly is the same problem junior devs have lol
Is there anything about reviewing the generated code? Not by the author but by another human being.
Colleagues don’t usually like to review AI generated code. If they use AI to review code, then that misses the point of doing the review. If they do the review manually (the old way) it becomes a bottleneck (we are faster at producing code now than we are at reviewing it)
This chapter describes a technique for making code reviews less mentally burdensome: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
I'm hoping to add more on that topic as I discover other patterns that are useful there.
Asking for a walkthrough of the codebase? Sure you linked to the right page?
I was expecting tips on code review instead based on your comment and GP.
It's the closest I have to touching on code review so far.
The most important thing you need to understand with working with agents for coding is that now you design a production line. And that has nothing to do (mostly) with designing or orchestrating agents.
Take a guitar, for example. You don't industrialize the manufacture of guitars by speeding up the same practices that artisans used to build them. You don't create machines that resemble individual artisans in their previous roles (like everyone seems to be trying to do with AI and software). You become Leo Fender, and you design a new kind of guitar that is made to be manufactured at another level of scale magnitude. You need to be Leo Fender though (not a talented guitarrist, but definitely a technical master).
To me, it sounds too early to describe patterns, since we haven't met the Ford/Fender/etc equivalent of this yet. I do appreciate the attempt though.
I dont currently have confidence in TDD
A broken test doesn’t make the agentic coding tool go “ooooh I made a bad assumption” any more than a type error or linter does
All a broken test does it prompt me to prompt back “fix tests”
I have no clue which one broke or why or what was missed, and it doesnt matter. Actual regressions are different and not dependent on these tests, and I follow along from type errors and LLM observability
People come up with the most insane workflow for agents. They complete about 80% of the work but that last 20% is basically equivalent to you doing the whole thing piece wise (with the help of AI). Except the latter gives you peace of mind.
I am still not sold on agentic coding. We’ll probably get there within the next couple of years.
I'm curious what you've used it for? I was firmly in your camp until about a month ago when i used codex to dust off an old side project. I hadn't touched the project in six months. This was literally my first prompt:
"Explain the codebase to a newcomer. What is the general structure, what are the important things to know, and what are some pointers for things to learn next?"
Once I saw the output I giddyup'd and haven't looked back.
Any word on patterns for security and deployment to prod?
Not yet, I'm still trying to figure out what the effective patterns for that are myself!
patterns that may help increase subjective perception of reliability from non-deterministic text generators trained on the theft of millions of developer's work for the past 25 years.
I think it's nonsensical to insist that it would only be a subjective improvement. The tests either exist and ensure that there aren't bugs in certain areas, or they don't. The agent is either in a feedback loop with those tests and continues to work until it has satisfied them or it doesn't.
That sounds like a very specific implementation strategy related to TDD
Red-Green TDD is one of the main "agent patterns" Simon proposes, so it seemed relevant.
Also, the same thing applies to feedback loops with compilers and linters as well: they provide objective feedback that then the AI goes and fixes, verifiably resolving the feedback.
Even with less verifiable things like using specifications, the fact that it relies on less objective grounding metrics doesn't mean there's no change in the model's behavior. I'm sure if you looked at the code that a model produced and the amount of intervention necessary to get there for a model that was asked to produce something without a specification versus with one, you would definitely see an objective difference on average. We're already getting objective studies regarding AGENTS.MD
Slop Engineering Patterns
Do you think there’s a chance that the hundreds of thousands or millions of developers - real developers - using these tools, might actually find them useful?
Dismissing everything AI as slop strikes me as an attitude that is not going to age well. You’ll miss the boat when it does come (and I believe it already has).
> You’ll miss the boat when it does come (and I believe it already has).
That's fine; these boats are coming daily now. I'll catch the next one if I need to.
> You’ll miss the boat when it does come
Is the boat:
1) unmissable since the tools get better all the time and are intelligent
or
2) nearly-impossible to board since the tools will replace most of the developers
or
3) a boat of small productivity improvements?
?
Personally today I think it’s 3.
Eventually I do think it will be 2.
I think you’ve got to make hay while the sun shines. Nobody knows how this is all going to play out, I just want to make sure I’m at the forefront of it.
So you think the tools will be intelligent yet somehow hard to master?
And the progress is slowing down in such a way, that knowledge learned today will not be outdated anymore?
Should investors be worried, since AGI is not coming anymore?
My advice is not to get hung up on whether this stuff is "intelligent" or caught out by the AGI hype.
We didn't ask if type-based autocomplete was "intelligent" before we started using that.
Treat coding agents as tools and figure out what they can and cannot do and how best to use them.
No, I think they will be very easy to use.
I think the relative comfort we've enjoyed as software engineers is going to disappear eventually. I just want to be the last to go.
My whole career, I've remained valuable by staying at the forefront of what is possible and connecting that to users' needs. Nothing has changed about my approach from that perspective.
I'm not an investor so I have no idea how they should think.
I really hate smelly statements like this or that is cheap now. They reek of carelessness.