Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most useful thing I've found is "I need to do X, show me 3 different popular libraries that do it". I've really limited my AI use to "Lady's Illustrated Primer" especially after some bad experiences with AI code from devs who should know better.
I don't even frame my requests conversationally. They usually read like brief demands, sometimes just comma delimited technologies followed by a goal. Works fine for me, but I also never prompt anything that I don't already understand how to do myself. Keeps the cart behind the horse.
If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
151–160 of 203 posts
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#152My process is basically 1. Give it requirements 2. Tell it to ask me clarifying questions 3. When no more questions, ask it to explain the requirements back to me in a formal PRD 4. I criticize it 5. Tell it to come up with 2 alternative high level designs 6. I pick one and criticize it 7. Tell it to come up with 2 alternative detailed TODO lists 8. I pick one and criticize it 9. Tell it to come up with 2 alternative…
I have a similar, though not as detailed, process. I do the same as you up to the PRD, then give it the PRD and tell it the high level architecture, and ask it to implement components how I want them. It's still time-consuming, and it probably would be faster for me to do it myself, but I can't be bothered manually writing lines of code any more. I maybe should switch to writing code with the LLM function by function…
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#153The title of this article seems way too glib. Code review isn't the same as design review, nor are these the only type of things (coding and design) that someone may be trying to use AI for. If you are going to use AI, and catch it's mistakes, then you need to have expertise in whatever it is you are using the AI for. Even if we limit the discussion just to coding, then being a good code reviewer isn't enough - you'd…
1. Stood up and managed my own Kubernetes clusters for my team
2. Docker, just so so much Docker
3. Developed CI/CD pipelines
4. Done more integration and integration testing then I care to think about
5. Written god knows how many requirements and produced and endless stream of diagrams and graphs for systems engineering teams
6. Don't a bunch of random IT crap because our infrastructure team can't be bothered
7. Wrote some code once in a while
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#154Code review is part of the job, but one of the least enjoyable parts. Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. AI tools are helpful, but inherently increases the amount of code we have to review with more scrutiny than my colleagues because of how unpredictable - yet convincing - it can be. Why did we create tools that do the fun part and increase the non-fun part? Where are the "code-revie…
> Code review is part of the job, but one of the least enjoyable parts. Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. At least for me, what gives the most satisfaction (even though this kind of satisfaction happens very rarely) if I discover some very elegant structure behind whatever has to be implemented that changes the whole way how you thought about programming (oroften even about life) for…
A number of years ago, I wrote a caching/lookup library that is probably some of the favorite code I've ever created.
After the initial configuration, the use was elegant and there was really no reason not to use it if you needed to query anything that could be cached on the server side. Super easy to wrap just about any code with it as long as the response is serializable.
CachingCore.Instance.Get(key, cacheDuration, () => { /* expensive lookup code here */ });
Under the hood, it would check the preferred caching solution (e.g., Redis/Memcache/etc), followed by less preferred options if the preferred wasn't available, followed by the expensive lookup if it wasn't found anywhere. Defaulted to in-memory if nothing else was available.
If the data was returned from cache, it would then compare the expiration to the specified duration... If it was getting close to various configurable tolerances, it would start a new lookup in the background and update the cache (some of our lookups could take several minutes*, others just a handful of seconds).
The hardest part was making sure that we didn't cause a thundering herd type problem with looking up stuff multiple times... in-memory cache flags indicating lookups in progress so we could hold up other requests if it failed through and then let them know once it's available. While not the absolute worst case scenario, you might end up making the expensive lookups once from each of the servers that use it if the shared cache isn't available.
* most of these have a separate service running on a schedule to pre-cache the data, but things have a backup with this method.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a similar, though not as detailed, process. I do the same as you up to the PRD, then give it the PRD and tell it the high level architecture, and ask it to implement components how I want them. It's still time-consuming, and it probably would be faster for me to do it myself, but I can't be bothered manually writing lines of code any more. I maybe should switch to writing code with the LLM function by function…
That's like a chef saying they can't be bothered to cook...
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, it’ll produce endless broken nonsense, but as long as someone is checking, it’s fine Well you've just described an EKF on a noisy sensor.
I do not think anybody is going to get that reference. https://xkcd.com/2501/
I mean the average person surely knows at least what a Jacobian is, right? Right? /s
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can campaign for your government to set any legal minimum for quality that you want, but it's essentially nonsensical to expect people not to optimise for cheapest given whatever those constraints are.
Apple, Oracle or Nvidia did not get there following your way of thinking A race to the bottom leaves you like Boeing or Intel. Late stage capitalism is not a must.
Your list of winners are optimising for what the market cares about, exactly like the supermarkets (who are also mostly winners) are optimising for what the market cares about. For most people, for food specifically, that means "cheap". Unavoidably, because most people have less money than they'd like. Fancy food is rare treat for many.
Apple software currently has a reputation for buggy UI; Oracle has a reputation for being litigious; that just leaves Nvidia who are printing money selling shovels in two sucessive gold rushes, which is fine for a business and means my investment is way up, but also means for high end graphics cards consumer prices are WTF and availability is LOL.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#158In my experience, not having to learn the background is the biggest time saver provided by LLM coding (e.g. not having to read through API docs or confirm details of a file format or understand some algorithm). So in a way I feel like there is a fundamental tension.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a similar, though not as detailed, process. I do the same as you up to the PRD, then give it the PRD and tell it the high level architecture, and ask it to implement components how I want them. It's still time-consuming, and it probably would be faster for me to do it myself, but I can't be bothered manually writing lines of code any more. I maybe should switch to writing code with the LLM function by function…
That's like a chef saying they can't be bothered to cook...
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if they appear to be largely LLM-generated And then what if the person denies it?
Run it up the chain They're either lying about using AI, or they're incompetent enough to produce AI quality (read: Garbage) code, either way the company should let them go