A bit, but mostly it propose extremely well-rounded solutions that are almost never complete, and sometimes miss a major point. I would rather have my juniors work themselves to understand what is needed, or/and ask me questions rather than follow the ticket that is basically a Claude plan. Right now I am modifying and object that was incomplete and I will have to do a migration because I didn't catch the missing attribute during the PR. It isn't big, and we could have coded workaround instead of redesigning the object, but: workarounds complexify the code, the data is less intuitive, and that also means the person who wrote the original object do not really understand the goals.

With a less 'expensive' ticket, with less explanation about how things should be done, but why they are needed, we would have had discussions, in dailies or 1on1, and that could have been ironed out then.

Yeah, basically Claude generate tickets that are heavy on the 'how' and light on the 'why', and I think that should be the other way around, for multiple reasons, but I'm already long-winded.