31–40 of 107 posts
This entire argument rests upon the fact that Gemini Flash ain't cheap. Try plan with opus 4.8 and then implement with Deepseek v4 flash - its 35x cheaper for reads, 90x cheaper writes, and 18x cheaper cache reads. Or plan with Deepseek Pro, or even Flash itself. I've been impressed with both.
> But the expensive part of an agent's day is not the fixing, building, or even the thinking. Opus fixing things does not cost money. Opus reading things costs money.
Heh, another rediscovery that agents and humans are alike. By the time I've researched a Jira ticket and made it unambiguous enough to outsource, I might as well have written the code myself instead.
> The mistake is upstream of the architecture diagram. People price agents the way they price people: senior time is expensive, so minimize senior involvement. > But the expensive part of an agent's day is not the fixing, building, or even the thinking. Opus fixing things does not cost money. Opus reading things costs money. Heh, another rediscovery that agents and humans are alike. By the time I've researched a Jira…
You could get better/faster at writing good specs and its a higher cap skill now.
For low risk changes you could let llm write its own spec from high level requirements and just validate its assumptions/design decisions.
In case anyone wants a summary: don’t one shot, don’t use plan mode and hand off the plan to cheap executors, ask the frontier model to explore, create a todo list, and then start when it feels confident; stop it after first code edit, then prefill the context to cheap executor to continue.
> Senior architect, junior engineer. Sounds great, right? Sounds like a consulting slaughterhouse. Picture Java Enterprise Solutions. As we all know, the pinnacle of software engineering.
Lately I'm trying a variation on this: Have the main agent make a phased implementation plan, then for each phase, have it start an implementation subagent with a focused prompt, then review that agent's work in the main session. The theory being that the main session still contains all the research, but it can review just the diff rather than have the entire implementation session in context as well. The post doesn'…
I’m using Claude code dynamic workflow like this. I tell Fable to use a workflow. He is the planner, orchestrator and reviewer. Opus agents are implementers. Works unbelievably well.
Isn't part of this the inevitable cache invalidation that comes from switching between providers (Opus to Gemini)?
I can understand that in their benchmark setting they wouldn't want the model to find an existing solution. But in my day to day work, wouldn't I want the model to search online for the best solution? Am I not shooting myself in the foot by preventing it?
Did they also use Gemini Flash to write this article? Because, frankly, it's unbearable
On the other hand people thought it was fine to use cliched titles like "The unreasonable effectiveness of..", "... for fun and profit", "The rise and fall of ...", "All you need is ...", etc. etc.
So I guess there's just a large portion of writers that are immune to cliche? Pretty annoying anyway.