When I reject AI code even if it works

Post by cadamsdotcom » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:35 AM UTC

unknownfuture wrote: post #39

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #35

If you reject AI code that works then your mindset is still too hands on. Put another way - you still have some loops to work on taking yourself out of. The agent should’ve delivered code that was acceptable as a first pass. Agents respond really well to feedback! They have no ego and they’ll happily improve code if told where and how. But you need to provide the tools that provide that feedback without your involvem…

Frankly, if that's truly your flow, then you cannot possibly know if the code really does what you expect it to do. "TDD" isn't some magic trick. The tests codify the expected behavior. But if you don't review them for correctness, if you let the LLM build them blindly, then you have no idea what those tests assert and can make no claims about whether the code then does what you expect. That's fine. That's your choic…

Post by monkamonme » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:36 AM UTC

Post by jimbobimbo » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:38 AM UTC

wwind123 wrote: post #36

I use 3 AI's (Claude, GPT and Gemini) to review each other's design plans and implementation on the same code base. Each often catches problems the others miss. I try to make sure the architecture docs of the code base are refreshed regularly based on recent changes, so it's easier for humans and AI agents to make sense of the code. I also regularly stop all other developments and just focus on auditing the code base…

Post by nostrebored » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:41 AM UTC

abhgh wrote: post #25

Aurornis wrote: post #10

Even using Fable (while it was briefly available), having it refine a plan, and directing it to make only small incremental changes, I still found reasons to reject its first pass at a lot of work. There was a lot of “You’re right to push back” responses. A lot of incidents where it would creat some giant complex set of abstractions to accomplish something that I could find ways to do much more elegantly and in a mor…

These "You're right to push back" scenarios are scary for me. I mostly code ML implementations, and some of the errors Claude Code (CC - have only used Opus 4.7) makes are very sneaky, and if you don't have sufficient experience in the area (I see this with people entering ML and writing their implementations with CC), you wouldn't know when to question CC and will let errors or future pitfalls silently slip into you…

Post by what » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #12

p1024k wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the author's intention, it is the code that he cannot understand or control. Even if the solution provided by the AI works, he will not adopt it. This is unless he can understand or control it. This should be an assumption. However, if AI provides a solution, as the person using AI, one should conduct research before making a decision. This is not in conflict with or hindered by the use of the ideas prov…

I think this policy is probably more prescriptive than I would go with myself. I like to think of my risk tolerance first to help make that determination. For example, I use a vibecoded internal tool written in Go. I don’t even know how to write Go. Haven’t read a single line of the code. I just wanted to move from bash scripts to using cloud SDKs for performance reasons. But the internal tool is a convenience tool,…