[selfsimilar]

> For 7 months I'd been prompting and shipping without ever sitting down and actually reading the code Claude wrote. I'd look at the diff, verify it compiled, test the happy path, move on. But now something was fundamentally broken and I couldn't just prompt my way out of it.

I stopped reading after this, because this is the dumbest way to vibe code anything larger than a single-use tool.

Claude is a collaborator, and honestly a decent voice of dissent, but it will never offer that unprompted. "Make this thing" - "OK".

You need to review the code. You need to say "I want this, AND HERE IS THE LONG-TERM VISION. Now offer critique and the trade-offs for various implementations."

Or just realize that in every hand-written project you learn the contours of the problem space as you go along and if the tool is big enough you'll feel the urge to do a green-field rewrite of hand-rolled code after a few years. You get there quicker with the robot's help. This is not a new lesson.

[gosukiwi]

bad devs are still bad, good devs are still good

[shimman]

Until the good devs have their skills atrophied away.