Comment by Leynos
5 days ago
Do you give the agent a style guide?
Do you perform (or have another agent perform) code reviews on the agent's code?
Do you discuss architecture and approach with the agent beforehand and compile that discussion into a design and development plan?
If you don't do these things, then you're just setting yourself up for failure.
That’s just the hallmark of good software engineering or do you think everyone else was cowboy coding things with Vim before?
Seemingly so going by the sibling comment to yours.
Ah yes the tried and true "you're holding it wrong"
By the time I did all the stuff you're suggesting, I could just build the damn thing myself
Would you skip these guardrails when working with a "Junior to Intermediate" developer?
No, but the goal of mentoring a Junior or Intermediate developer is that they eventually learn this stuff on their own. The value of helping another human grow is worth the tradeoff
AI is a tool, not a human. I'm not about to invest in it the way I would a Junior developer. If the tool doesn't do the job, it's not a good tool. If a tool requires the same level of investment that a human does it's also not a good tool
1 reply →
But you are holding it wrong, and experience is the difference in being able to recognize when oft-repeated advice should actually be seriously considered, vs dismissing entire swaths of engineers who are holding it right.
Do you know how tiring it gets to constantly engage with people who complain about agentic workflows without actually having the experience or knowledge to properly evaluate them? These people already have intentionally closed their minds on the subject, but still love to debate it loudly and frequently even though they have little intention of actually considering others' arguments or advice. What could be an educational moment turns into ideological warfare reminiscent of the text editor or operating system wars.
It's beginning to get infuriating, because of the unbridled arrogance typically encountered by naysayers.