I think it's part art of prompting, and part problem scope -- they're not gonna get you a super polished final product without a LOT of support (yet), but they

I think it's part art of prompting, and part problem scope -- they're not gonna get you a super polished final product without a LOT of support (yet), but they excel at rapid I-don't-care-what-the-code-looks-like-just-get-me-an-interactive-prototype work, and at solving specific problems (e.g. the function should do THIS, write it and write me a test suite). However, there are some agentic IDEs like Windsurf that are working to have LLMs orchestrate their own work. Well supported with a rock solid test suite, I've seen some people do pretty incredible things with them. The more a codebase provides tools for LLMs to live of the land in terms of tests and comments, the more aggressive you can be with what you ask them to do. I've built a couple pretty simple apps that have been basically no code beyond tweaks for me. I do think a big knowledge gap is the acceleration of prompting by knowing how to talk about code. LLMs show a lot of difference in response between "make the top bit stay on the screen on small screens" and "make the <th> element sticky for viewports <600px".