Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is agentic engineering?

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#31

Post by simonw »

skydhash wrote: post #30
maxbond wrote: post #8

I don't think we should be making this distinction. We're still engaged in software engineering. This isn't a new discipline, it's a new technique. We're still using testing, requirements gathering, etc. to ensure we've produced the correct product and that the product is correct. Just with more automation.

My preferred definition of software engineering is found in the first chapter of Modern Software Engineering by David Farley Software engineering is the application of an empirical, scientific approach to finding efficient, economic solutions to practical problems in software. As for the practitioner, he said that they: …must become experts at learning and experts at managing complexity For the learning part, that me…

That definition of software engineering is a great illustration of why I like the term agentic engineering.

Using coding agents to responsibly and productively build good software benefits from all of those characteristics.

The challenge I'm interested in is how we professionalize the way we use these new tools. I want to figure out how to use them to write better software than we were writing without them.

See my definition of "good code" in a subsequent chapter: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#32

Post by digdugdirk »

stainlu wrote: post #28

[flagged]

Honestly? I've been playing with using LLMs specifically for that reason. I'm far more likely to make prototypes that I specifically intend to throw away during the development process.

I try out ideas that are intended to explore some small aspect of a concept, and just ask the LLM to generate the rest of whatever scaffold is needed to verify the part that I'm interested in. Or use an LLM to generate just a roughest MVP prototype you could imagine, and start using it immediately to calibrate my initial intuition about the problem space. Eventually you get to the point where you've tried out your top 3-5 ideas for each different corner of your codebase, and you can really nail down your spec and then its off to the races building your "real" version.

I have a mechanical engineering background, so I'm quite used to the concept of destructive validation testing. As soon as I made that connection while exploring a new idea via claude code, it all started feeling much more natural. Now my coding process is far more similar to my old physical product design process than I'd ever imagined it could be.

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#33

Post by yammosk »

stainlu wrote: post #28

[flagged]

I find it quite useful to work out, plan, and refine ideas with agents. An agents ability to call out approaches you haven't thought of is really powerful. I find it useful to steer their feedback and proposals to the exact constraints you have or give yourself a confidence check on if you are leaning toward a solution for the right reasons. The best is when you can test 2-3 avenues and being able to come back and evaluate the results. Normally you would commit to one and spend all your time on that approach, make an assessment it was bad enough to try something else and move on. I find agents completely flip the script on research and planning. I find I am better able to work on hard problems then ever before with these tools. I think people severely limit themselves if they are only using them at the "build it" phase.

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#34

Post by iamcreasy »

Is there any article explaining how AI tools are evolving since the release of ChatGPT? Everything upto MCP makes sense to me - but since then it feels like there is not clear definition on new AI jergons.

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#35

Post by skydhash »

simonw wrote: post #31
skydhash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My preferred definition of software engineering is found in the first chapter of Modern Software Engineering by David Farley Software engineering is the application of an empirical, scientific approach to finding efficient, economic solutions to practical problems in software. As for the practitioner, he said that they: …must become experts at learning and experts at managing complexity For the learning part, that me…

That definition of software engineering is a great illustration of why I like the term agentic engineering. Using coding agents to responsibly and productively build good software benefits from all of those characteristics. The challenge I'm interested in is how we professionalize the way we use these new tools. I want to figure out how to use them to write better software than we were writing without them. See my de…

I’ve read the chapter and while the description is good, there’s no actual steps or at least a general direction/philosophy on how to get there. It does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be practical. Then we could contrast the methodology with what we already have to learn the tradeoffs, if they can be combined, etc…

Anything that relates to “Agentic Engineering” is still hand-wavey or trying to impose a new lens on existing practices (which is why so many professionals are skeptical)

ADDENDUM

I like this paragraph of yours

We need to provide our coding agents with the tools they need to solve our problems, specify those problems in the right level of detail, and verify and iterate on the results until we are confident they address our problems in a robust and credible way.

There’s a parallel that can be made with Unix tools (best described in the Unix Power Tools) or with Emacs. Both aim to provide the user a set of small tools that can be composed and do amazing works. One similar observation I made from my experiment with agents was creating small deterministic tools (kinda the same thing I make with my OS and Emacs), and then let it be the driver. Such tools have simple instructions, but their worth is in their combination. I’ve never have to use more than 25 percent of the context and I’m generally done within minutes.

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#38

Post by simonw »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #37

The premise is flawed: Now that we have software that can write working code ... While there are other points made which are worth consideration on their own, it is difficult to take this post seriously given the above.

If you haven't seen coding agents produce working code you've not been paying attention for the past 3-12 months.

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#39

Post by simonw »

skydhash wrote: post #35
simonw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That definition of software engineering is a great illustration of why I like the term agentic engineering. Using coding agents to responsibly and productively build good software benefits from all of those characteristics. The challenge I'm interested in is how we professionalize the way we use these new tools. I want to figure out how to use them to write better software than we were writing without them. See my de…

I’ve read the chapter and while the description is good, there’s no actual steps or at least a general direction/philosophy on how to get there. It does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be practical. Then we could contrast the methodology with what we already have to learn the tradeoffs, if they can be combined, etc… Anything that relates to “Agentic Engineering” is still hand-wavey or trying to impose a new…

> there’s no actual steps or at least a general direction/philosophy on how to get there

That's what the rest of the guide is meant to cover: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

Re: What is agentic engineering?

#40

Post by roncesvalles »

righthand wrote: post #6

How is this different than Prompt Engineering?

I think prompt engineering is obsolete at this point, partly because it's very hard to do better than just directly stating what you want. Asking for too much tone modification, role-playing or output structuring from LLMs very clearly degrades the quality of the output.

"Prompt engineering" is a relic of the early hypothesis that how you talk to the LLM is gonna matter a lot.

Post reply on HN