The conversation

Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

The pattern I've found: AI doesn't need to be perfect at writing code

… The pattern I've found: AI doesn't need to be perfect at writing code. It needs to be honest about what it doesn't know, aggressive about testing its own work, and operating under clear constraints about what's destructive vs. safe. We maintain a file called AGENTS.md with "sacred rules" — things the agent can never do without explicit approval. Database migrations, pricing changes, anything with --accept-data-loss. The "no LLM" stance makes sense if you don't have guardrails. With the right constraints, AI-assisted code is faster AND safer than solo human development — because the agent never gets tired, never rushes before a deadline, and never thinks "I'll test that later."

Original discussionClaude now creates interactive charts, diagrams and visualizations115 source comments · at import
2

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

RA

> The "no LLM" stance makes sense if you don't have guardrails. With the right constraints, AI-assisted code is faster AND safer than solo human development — because the agent never gets tired, never rushes before a deadline, and never thinks "I'll test that later." Ironically I had a bunch of cases recently where CC would stop saying stuff like "this test problem is unrelated/a pre-existing issue when it had no proof of this and it was clearly not true (the branch built/tests were passing before the LLM changes).

Full original
AB

If you're relying on an AGENTS.md file to stop your AI agents from running a destructive action, I think you are sitting on a time bomb.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.