[9dev]

Most of the interaction surface with a coding agent is the harness anyway, so I'd definitely classify them as tools. Moreover, I don't like the anthropomorphism of calling them beings—and even if I were to follow that narrative, you can absolutely become better at interacting with people by practicing it.

Regardless, it sure seems like developers experienced with using coding agents achieve better results than those without, which pretty much refuses your entire point.

[js8]

Yes you can learn the harness, that's a tool. But it's not the important part.

I am not anthroporphizing them. I am just saying people are a better analogy.

> seems like developers experienced with using coding agents achieve better results than those without

That doesn't mean there is a skill involved. The same goes with people - you might just be naturally charismatic and get stuff done better with people. Doesn't mean it's a learnable skill that applies to everyone and every use case.

[thedevilslawyer]

It's absolutely a skill. That you're putting this up as "charisma" simply shows you have not explored agentic engineering.

If you are indeed interested, this is a good beginner: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

[js8]

Sorry, it's not engineering, it's cargo-culting as engineering. Engineering is based on improved formal understanding of the process, not magical incantantions. And yes I do use these things. It's like saying copy-pasting code is a skill.

[thedevilslawyer]

Until you think using agents is a magical incantation, you will not be able to actually engage with it and develop the skill.

As evidence that it is a skill beyond copy paste, you should look around (online and offline) at the really smart people who are able to derive so much from it.