2 ms·
Trivially debunked with the prompt "find technical debt to fix". https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b752c7af6caab7ae7ce0b/docs/scratch/2
by hombre_fatal 21d ago
Trivially debunked with the prompt "find technical debt to fix".
https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b752c7af6caab7ae7ce0b/docs/scratch/2026-08-26-improvement-audit.md https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b7...
Here's the result of a prompt that specifically looks for correctness and simplifications to make "by construction" before I added "Design bar: ensure correctness by construction rather than by convention" to AGENTS.md:
https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b752c7af6caab7ae7ce0b/docs/scratch/2026-08-18-construction-audit.md https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b7...
- blueline 21d agoLinking to an 8800 line claude written wall of text reinforces the parent's point.
- hombre_fatal 21d agoHow? Because it found too many opportunities to improve the code beyond what we'd want to review as a human? Each file is a list of findings that includes the justification/verification of each finding in the same file. This is just what work looks like, especially tech debt repayment. It's analysis, reasoning, and justification. Those produce words.
- blueline 21d agoSounds good, have fun with that.
- hombre_fatal 21d agoI did. Just about all of the findings were re-verified to be good and then implemented by a rigorous pipeline of clankers, and the project was improved. If it weren't for me insisting that I manually sign off on the solution of every finding, then it would have been fully automated too.