[ccoreilly]

There‘s many approaches being discussed and it will depend on the size of the task. You could just review a plan and assume the output is correct but you need at least behavioural tests to understand what was built fulfilled the requirements. You can split the plan further and further until the changes are small enough to be reviewable. Where I don’t see the benefit is in asking an agent to generate test as it tends to generate many useless unit tests that make reviewing more cumbersome. Writing the tests yourself (or defining them and letting an agent write the code) and not letting implementation agents change the tests is also something worth trying.

The truth is we’re all still experimenting and shovels of all sizes and forms are being built.

[nuky]

That matches my experience too - tests and plans are still the backbone.

What I keep running into is the step before reading tests or code: when a change is large or mechanical, I’m mostly trying to answer "did behavior or API actually change, or is this mostly reshaping?" so I know how deep to go etc.

Agree we’re all still experimenting here.