> How so? Sure. Another article was posted today[1] on the subject. An example claim: > If we asked the AI to solve a task that was already partially solved,

> How so? Sure. Another article was posted today[1] on the subject. An example claim: > If we asked the AI to solve a task that was already partially solved, it would just replicate code all over the project. We’d end up with three different card components. Yes, this is where reviews are important, but it’s very tiring to tell the AI for the nth time that we already have a Text component with defined sizes and colors. Adding this information to the guidelines didn’t work BTW. This is helpful framing. I would say to this: I have also noticed this pattern. I have seen two approaches help. One, I break up UI / backend tasks. At the end of UI tasks, and sometimes before I even look at the code, I say: "Have you reviewed your code against the existing components library <link to doc>?" and sometimes "Have you reviewed the written code compared to existing patterns and can you identify opportunities for abstraction?" (I use plan mode for the latter, and review what it says). The other approach which I have seen others try, but have not myself (but it makes sense), is to automatically do this with a sub agent or hook. At a high level it seems like a good approach given I am manually doing the same thing now. [1]: https://antropia.studio/blog/to-ai-or-not-to-ai/ https://antropia.studio/blog/to-ai-or-not-to-ai/