If that's what they're tuning for, that's just not what I want. So I'm glad I switched off of Anthropic.
What teams of programmers need, when AI tooling is thrown into the mix, is more interaction with the codebase, not less. To build reliable systems the humans involved need to know what was built and how.
I'm not looking for full automation, I'm looking for intelligence and augmentation, and I'll give my money and my recommendation as team lead / eng manager to whatever product offers that best.
Now I use claude with agent orchestration and beads.
Well actually, I’m currently using openclaw to spin up multiple claudes with the above skills.
If I need to drop down to claude, I do.
If I need to edit something (usually writing I hate), I do.
I haven’t needed to line edit something in a while - it’s just faster to be like “this is a bad architecture, throw it away, do this instead, write additional red-green tests first, and make sure X. Then write a step by step tutorial document (I like simonw’s new showboat a lot for this), and fix any bugs / API holes you see.”
But I guess I could line edit something if I had to. The above takes a minute, though.
Full automation is also possible by putting your coding agent into a loop. The point is that an LLM that can solve a small task is more valuable for quality output, than an LLM that can solve a larger task autonomously.
That sounds like wishful thinking. Every client I work for wants to reduce the rate at which humans need to intervene. You might not want that, but odds are your CEO does. And babysitting intermediate stages is not productive use of developer time.
Well, I want to reduce the rate at which I have to intervene in the work my agents do as well. I spend more time improving how long agents can work without my input than I spend writing actual code these days.
