> Guardrails matter here: mandatory human authored test specs (in partnership with an experienced engineer), strict code review, and explicit reasoning requirem

> Guardrails matter here: mandatory human authored test specs (in partnership with an experienced engineer), strict code review, and explicit reasoning requirements (“explain why this change is correct”) help prevent silent failure modes. The third of these (reasoning requirements) is the most reasonable to me. The others require that review capacity scales to match the capacity of the junior to produce garbage, which capacity LLMs now make unlimited. IMO the onus must be on the author to produce an explanation that matches their change and makes sense (even if it’s wrong), and until they do the reviewer must be able to just say “nope, try again” as many times as necessary. It’s sad because thoughtful feedback is the best way to learn, but bad actors using LLMs have decided to skip learning and so should not waste the time of a reviewer who could be helping someone else.