[ben30]

Personally it's well-defined and agentic - just not circulated.

/understand - agents interrogate the problem /huddle - Thinking panel turns it into a PRD - attacks the premise, PRDs regularly die here /tm - claude-task-master breaks the survivor into a dependency graph

Nobody writes this half up because "agent talked me out of building it" demos worse than "agent built it".

[jplusequalt]

What value do you serve here if agents are analyzing the problem, writing the code, and verifying it's correct?

What is your purpose? I would take your harness, fire you, then pay a product manager half the price to do the same job.

[manmal]

Sorry I have to ask. How senior are you? The notion that I‘d allow an agent to talk me out of something seems weird. 99% of cases, it’s the other way around. Architecture is just not where they shine.

[srcreigh]

What’s your process? My experience matches yours, but then again I usually just give a few lines to codex. I imagine if I tried harder to give detailed specs as input, the agent would have a lot more room to spot flaws and kill the plan.

[manmal]

Usually when they push back, it’s for obvious reasons, things I already know and actively decided to ignore. They are trained on mediocre software, and it shows.

I like using voice input a lot, I get way more info out of my brain and into the context that way.

Process wise, for bug fixes I usually just throw the ticket in and optionally some thoughts on how to fix. But if I don’t know the cause, I let it write instrumentation tests until the bug is reproed, and then the fix is easy.

For new features in brownfield projects, I usually need to align with team members because we‘re closely aligned between platforms. We iterate on what you could call a spec, which is just a mix of requirements, magic numbers we want, algorithms we‘ve picked (often by vibing prototypes), and sometimes going very specific on parts that must be done right. Eg for interfaces with other teams, and there’s not yet a document to describe that, we put that in the spec as well. We do use agents to shoot holes in those specs, and often they find inconsistencies. But architecturally, they seem to get caught up too much in what’s already in those specs, and personally I haven’t seen any worthwhile feedback that I‘d have taken up.

Sometimes we use this spec to vibe a first draft. Often the draft is so good that it can be bent to our liking. Sometimes, it just serves as a reservoir of ideas, and the feature must be implemented (with assistance) by re-assembling the pieces differently.