Comment by jumploops
12 days ago
Yeah to be clear it will have the same issues as a flyby contributor if prompted to.
Meaning if you ask it “handle this new condition” it will happily throw in a hacky conditional and get the job done.
I’ve found the most success in having it reason about the current architecture (explicitly), and then to propose a set of changes to accomplish the task (2-5 ways), review, and then implement the changes that best suit the scope of the larger system.
The failure mode is missing constraints, not “coding skill”. Treat the model as a generator that must operate inside an explicit workflow: define the invariant boundaries, require a plan/diff before edits, run tests and static checks, and stop when uncertainty appears. That turns “hacky conditional” behaviour into controlled change.
Yes, exactly.
The LLM is onboarding to your codebase with each context window, all it knows is what it’s seen already.
Right. Each context window is a partial view, so it cannot “know the codebase” unless you supply stable artefacts. Treat project state as inputs: invariants, interfaces, constraints, and a small set of must-keep facts. Then force changes through a plan and a diff, and gate with tests and checks. That turns context limits into a controlled boundary instead of a surprise.