Code cannot and should not be self documenting at scale. You cannot document "the why" with code. In my experience, that is only ever used as an excuse not to write actual documentation or use comments thoughtfully in the codebase by lazy developers.
I don't think testing the product alone is good enough, because when you give it tests it has to pass it prioritizes passing them at the expense of everything else — including code quality. I've seen it pull in random variables, break semantic functions, etc.
My intentionality is that I'll never let it make the changes. I make the changes. I might make changes it suggests, but only upon review and only written with my hands.
I've seen a lot of people talking about how AI is making codebases worse. I reject that, people are making codebases worse by not being intentional about how their AI writes code.
Agreed. When you submit code you must take responsibility for its quality. Blaming AI for low quality code is like blaming hammers for giant holes in the drywall. If you don't know how to use AI tools without confidence that your code is high quality, you need to re-assess how you use those tools. I'm not saying AI tools are bad. They're great. But the prevalence of people pushing the tools beyond their limits is not a failure of the tools. Vibe coding may be fun but tight-leash high-oversight AI usage is underrated in my opinion.
In a blameless postmortem style process, you would look at not just the mistake itself but the factors influencing the mistake and how to mitigate them. E.g., doctor was tired AND the hospital demanded long hours AND the industry has normalized this.
So yes, the programmers need to hold the line AND ALSO the velocity of the tool makes it easy to get tired AND and its confidence and often-good results promote laziness or maybe folks just don’t know better AND it can thrash your context and bounce you around the code base making it hard to remember the subtleties AND on and on.
Anyway, strong agree on “dude, review better” as a key part of the answer. Also work on all this other stuff and understand the cost of VeLOciTy…
The intention part is right but the bottleneck is review. AI is really good at turning your clean semantic functions into pragmatic ones without you noticing. You ask for a feature, it slips a side effect into something that was pure, tests still pass. By the time you catch it you've got three more PRs built on top.
In my experience trying to push the onus of filtering out slop onto reviewers is both ineffective and unfair to the reviewer. When you submit code for review you are saying "I believe to the best of my ability that this code is high quality and adequate but it's best to have another person verify that." If the AI has done things without you noticing, you haven't reviewed its output well enough yet and shouldn't be submitting it to another person yet.
Code review should be a transmission of ideas and helping spotting errors that can slip in due to excessive familiarity with the changes (which are often glaring to anyone other than the author).
If you're not familiar with the patch enough to answer any question about it, you shouldn't submit it for review.
I think there’s just a lot of people who would love to push lower quality code for a variety of legitimate and illegitimate reasons (time pressure, cost, laziness, skill issues, bad management, etc). AI becomes a perfect scapegoat for lowered code quality.
And you’re completely right, humans are still the ones in control here. It’s entirely possible to use AI without lowering your standards.
I haven't really extensively evaluated this, but my instinct is to really aggressively trim any 'instructions' files. I try to keep mine at a mid-double-digit linecount and leave out anything that's not critically important. You should also be skeptical of any instructions that basically boil down to "please follow this guideline that's generally accepted to be best practice" - most current models are probably already aware - stick to things that are unique to your project, or value decisions that aren't universally agreed upon.
Wrestled with this a bit. The struggle with this one in particular is its as much for people to read as it is for agents, and the agents are secondary in its case.
I generally agree on this as best practice today, though I think it will become irrelevant in the next 2 generations of models.
it’s not that shorter rules are intrinsically better, it’s that longer rules tend to have irrelevant junk in them. ceteris paribus, longer rules are better. it’s just most of the time the longer rules fall under the Blaise Pascal-ian “i regret i didn’t have time to make this shorter”.
For any sufficiently large codebase, the agent only ever has a very % of the code loaded into context. Context engineering strategies like "skills" allow the agent to more efficiently discover the key information required to produce consistent code.
mostly because reading the code base fills up the context window; as you aggregate context, you then need to synthesize the basics; these things arnt intelligence; they dont know whats useless and whats useful. They're as accurate as the structureyou surround them with.
I will, often go back, after the fact, and ask for refactors and documentation.
It works. Probably a lot slower than using agents, but I test every step, and it is a lot faster than I would do it, unassisted.
I use a test harness, and step through the code, look at debug logs, and abuse the code, as much as possible.
Kind of a pain, but I find unit tests are a bit of a "false hope" kind of thing: https://littlegreenviper.com/testing-harness-vs-unit/
Got it, good idea.
Good content tho!
This is my take on how to not write slop.
In a blameless postmortem style process, you would look at not just the mistake itself but the factors influencing the mistake and how to mitigate them. E.g., doctor was tired AND the hospital demanded long hours AND the industry has normalized this.
So yes, the programmers need to hold the line AND ALSO the velocity of the tool makes it easy to get tired AND and its confidence and often-good results promote laziness or maybe folks just don’t know better AND it can thrash your context and bounce you around the code base making it hard to remember the subtleties AND on and on.
Anyway, strong agree on “dude, review better” as a key part of the answer. Also work on all this other stuff and understand the cost of VeLOciTy…
If you're not familiar with the patch enough to answer any question about it, you shouldn't submit it for review.
And you’re completely right, humans are still the ones in control here. It’s entirely possible to use AI without lowering your standards.
I generally agree on this as best practice today, though I think it will become irrelevant in the next 2 generations of models.