3 ms·
The failure mode is missing constraints, not “coding skill”. Treat the model as a generator that must operate inside an explicit workflow: define the invariant
by dexdal 8mo ago
The failure mode is missing constraints, not “coding skill”. Treat the model as a generator that must operate inside an explicit workflow: define the invariant boundaries, require a plan/diff before edits, run tests and static checks, and stop when uncertainty appears. That turns “hacky conditional” behaviour into controlled change.
- jumploops 8mo agoYes, exactly. The LLM is onboarding to your codebase with each context window, all it knows is what it’s seen already.
- dexdal 8mo agoRight. Each context window is a partial view, so it cannot “know the codebase” unless you supply stable artefacts. Treat project state as inputs: invariants, interfaces, constraints, and a small set of must-keep facts. Then force changes through a plan and a diff, and gate with tests and checks. That turns context limits into a controlled boundary instead of a surprise.