> When coding assistants write most of the software, the fidelity of the mental model I hold degrades quickly. Instead of fighting this new normal I have been t

> When coding assistants write most of the software, the fidelity of the mental model I hold degrades quickly. Instead of fighting this new normal I have been trying to create methods to use the model as a tool to query and develop the mental model on-demand. That’s the “after the fact” approach. Instead of this I had Claude Code write a script which, when run, traverses the AST of the entire codebase and gives an error if any architectural constraints are violated. For example, backend route handlers cannot import or use the database client. The error message says “you must go through the service and repository layers”. This script is then included in the agent’s coding loop by being added as a custom check in pre-commit (or husky, if you’re using node et al) The coding agent now treats architecture violations as a compiler error. It reads the error, has a think, and fixes it.. and I sip coffee and work on something else. Never be looking at code and talking back to your agent. Your agent should only be handing you code that’d pass code review. That bar is something I’ve build up to incrementally and will keep adding to forever.