3 ms·
> The code must pass property-based tests Who writes the tests? It can be ok to trust code that passes tests if you can trust the tests. There are, however, o
by pron 7mo ago
> The code must pass property-based tests
Who writes the tests? It can be ok to trust code that passes tests if you can trust the tests.
There are, however, other problems. I frequently see agents write code that's functionally correct but that they won't be able to evolve for long. That's also what happened with Anthropic's failed attempt to have agents write a C compiler (not a trivial task, but far from an exceptionally difficult one). They had thousands of good human-written tests, but the agents couldn't get the software to converge. They fixed one bug only to create another.
- lielcohen 7mo ago[flagged]
- SAI_Peregrinus 7mo agoIf you don't trust agents not to "cheat" the tests then: The agent that writes the tests must have read-only access to the spec & the API. It MUST NOT have access to the implementation, even to read it. The agent that writes the implementation must have read-only access to the spec. It MUST NOT have access to the tests implementation, only to the output report from running them. This is a PITA to manage with classic UNIX permissions, but is doable with ACLs (`setfacl`/`getfacl`). Actually getting the agent processes to run as different users in an IDE setting instead of a CLI is not supported out of the box by any of the major vendors AFAICT, so IMO they're not really fit-for-purpose.