6 ms·
My automated doubt development process
- dbgrman 4mo agoEnjoyed it until the first emdash (was half expecting it to arrive anyway). Sorry.
- hexasquid 4mo agoI'm coming around to liking them; they're like a sort of anti-shibboleth. "Ah, an em-dash", I think: "now I know".
- hlieberman 4mo ago“They inhabit the fulcrum of the process” is straight up AI psychosis talk.
- aself101 4mo agoThis has been my attempt at wrangling the new A.I. assisted development that seems to be overtaking the software engineering profession. I jumped head first into LLM development after observing the trends from the last year and it appears this process might be a viable path forward.
- jnewton_dev 4mo ago[flagged]
- ben30 4mo agoI’ve had similar feelings how can I trust this if I no longer write the code directly. I wrote an /assess tool. I designed it to be token light but assesses on everything I could do to regain trust and help AI to improve my code base not by add features but by adding discipline.
- docheinestages 4mo agoMost writings about the spec-driven development I see start with a product requirements document that is assumed to be valid. But I doubt that's the case. If so, you would've written about it, and probably would've involved agents in the research that goes into it. My gut feeling tells me there's much more emphasis on implementing the feature than on questioning if it's relevant, feasible, and based on valid assumptions.
- ben30 4mo agoMost of my energy is refining a prd these days.
- docheinestages 4mo agoThen how come that process is not agentic and not well-described?
- ben30 4mo agoPersonally it's well-defined and agentic - just not circulated. /understand - agents interrogate the problem /huddle - Thinking panel turns it into a PRD - attacks the premise, PRDs regularly die here /tm - claude-task-master breaks the survivor into a dependency graph Nobody writes this half up because "agent talked me out of building it" demos worse than "agent built it".
- manmal 4mo agoSorry I have to ask. How senior are you? The notion that I‘d allow an agent to talk me out of something seems weird. 99% of cases, it’s the other way around. Architecture is just not where they shine.
- srcreigh 4mo agoWhat’s your process? My experience matches yours, but then again I usually just give a few lines to codex. I imagine if I tried harder to give detailed specs as input, the agent would have a lot more room to spot flaws and kill the plan.
- agnitripathi 4mo ago[flagged]
- m12k 4mo agoI've stumbled on the same workflow. Except for one thing: If I just do as OP does, Claude Code will tend to overengineer. For example it'll build complex solutions to super rare race conditions that have trivial fallout. But I've found that all it takes is a "skeptical pass". Here's how it goes: After having a bunch of specialist subagents review the (plan/implementation), after doing the deduplication/synthesis of their findings, the main agent will bucket them into A) Trivial/obvious fix B) there's multiple possible resolutions, but the LLM had a strong lean, so it went with it on its own C) Genuine ambiguity, where it asks me what to do (and presents its lean) and D) Wontfix. Crucially, after doing this, I have it run a "skeptical pass" where it takes a hard look at these findings and see if maybe some of them deserve to be downgraded. Generally, a lot of things make their way into wontfix this way. I find, I don't need to push back against overengineering, I can have the LLM do so itself, and it'll actually do a decent job of it.
- ErroneousBosh 4mo agoThis sounds harder than just writing the code.
- yudidnmkating 4mo ago[dead]
- Vachyas 4mo agoWhen you put it like that, it really does, lol.
- m12k 4mo agoIf I was doing all this ad hoc, it might just be. But I’ve had Claude save this as three “skills” (standard workflows) that chain together (review-branch, triage-findings, apply-fixes) so all I need to do is say “review the branch”, make judgment calls on truly ambiguous decisions, and then “apply the fixes”. It’s effort-full but not for me
- watersb 4mo agoStrangely reminiscent of an Electric Monk: The Electric Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe. -- Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
- claudiosilva 4mo ago[flagged]
- yudidnmkating 4mo ago[dead]
- victorkulla 4mo ago[flagged]
- HappySweeney 4mo agoI think its common to develop an adversarial-collaborative approach to getting some semblance of quality out of AI. I personally favour using multiple models for different roles, having a bunch of continuity documentation maintained, and having the plan surface human-verifiable deliverables as soon as feasible. It does involve more attention than most people would tolerate probably.
- marcus_holmes 4mo agoI have a similar skill that assesses project drift (how far the current project state is from the original spec and brief) and looks for artifacts of that - orphaned code or features that are no longer relevant, design decisions that made sense at the time but are now dubious, or parts of the design that no longer fit the current project state. I found it really useful taming the spaghetti that claude tends to generate by itself.
- tuo-lei 4mo agoreview agents have the same training biases as the one writing the code. you get 30 findings about error handling and edge cases, but wrong domain assumptions slip right through.