>I’ve been using Cursor and other AI coding tools, and I noticed a pattern: they go from requirements → code → fix when it breaks. It works, but it’s reactive.

>I’ve been using Cursor and other AI coding tools, and I noticed a pattern: they go from requirements → code → fix when it breaks. It works, but it’s reactive. I write what I want, it half-understands, breaks something, and I patch it. This is last generation AI coding. I was literally using qwen2.5 coder instruct yesterday; so i havent moved on yet. Next gen is with similar options to: https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/AutoGPT or https://www.langchain.com/agents https://www.langchain.com/agents honestly havent tried either of those. >What I wish existed is a flow like this: Requirements → Generate Tests → Generate Code → Run Tests Isnt that what github copilot is doing? This is what i didnt like about it; but im sure more talented devs appreciate what it's doing. >Would you use something like this? Would you pay for it (e.g. Cursor-level pricing, ~$20/mo)? What would break this in your workflow? Why not go for the sky? Requirements -> fully generated project that just works and i dont care how it got there. Scotty on the enterprise was just writing prompts and never looking at unit tests.