4 ms·
It's extremely bespoke. Initial dev required talking to Claude. Now I add a ticket in the board, it makes me a mockup/writeup, I approve, and it gets me a temp
by ceejayoz 28d ago
It's extremely bespoke.
Initial dev required talking to Claude. Now I add a ticket in the board, it makes me a mockup/writeup, I approve, and it gets me a temporary webserver, iOS/Android build, etc. to verify it.
Review loops, agents that enforce my pet peeves and testing/debugging processes, etc. all run automatically... and then Codex strips down the prose at the end. There's not zero AI generated output, but it's already been critiqued and verified by a whole cluster of independent actors before it gets to me. When I have feedback, I file a ticket.
I wanted to get out of the "what the fuck, why?!" loop. Now I let the agents handle that.
- mrheosuper 27d agoSo instead of talking directly, you talk indirectly through ticket ?
- ceejayoz 27d agoI’m of the feeling that talking directly to these things all day is a path to madness. They talk to each other, come to consensus, and give me a structured thing to look at that has already been vetted and tested and screenshot evidence and a verification plan. It’s not conversational for me.
- selestify 26d agoOk, but my problem is that what it builds is not right. It's never right on the first try, or the second or third tries. There's always a ton of incremental corrective feedback needed. Do you run into this problem? If not, then I need to figure out how to stop running into it myself. If so, then how do you give it all the incremental corrective feedback without a conversation?
- ceejayoz 22d agoA combination of guardrails - the spec stage is required to give me a mockup for UI work, it has to make failing tests for bug fixes, etc. - and adversarial reviews ensuring the lazy fuckers don't just give up half way through. 20-30 agents probably touch an average ticket, but I sign off about twice.