3 ms·
I really like the idea but my gut says it would be hard to trust. In the last example... "cleanest result" is not a great definition of done (that's only sort o
by 4b11b4 7mo ago
I really like the idea but my gut says it would be hard to trust. In the last example... "cleanest result" is not a great definition of done (that's only sort of a nitpick).
In general, I feel that removing the decision process (or relegating it to a language model) is not a good idea.
- staticvar 7mo agoYes, plz don't trust it, always review! The idea is that one prompt in Claude Code got you 80% of the way there, but with some automated review/iterate, it gets you 95% of the way there. It's not worth your time to review the 80% done version when you could be reviewing the 95% done version.
- staticvar 7mo agoAlso on that point about keeping humans in the loop on decisions, I've found following the Research-Plan-Implement process where we humans review at each of those stages, to be really helpful. This doc describes the skill I use with my agents so they keep me looped in: https://gist.github.com/rjcorwin/296885590dc8a4ebc64e70879dc04a0f https://gist.github.com/rjcorwin/296885590dc8a4ebc64e70879dc... Then I use cook to iterate and explore during the AI led parts.