Right now, I'm finding a decent rhythm in running 10-20 prompts and then kind of checking the results a few different ways. I'll ask the agent to review the code, I'll go through myself, I'll do some usability and gut checks.

This seems to be a good window where I can implement a pretty large feature, and then go through and address structural issues. Goofy thinks like the agent adding an extra database, weird fallback logic where it ends up building multiple systems in parallel, etc.

Currently, I find multiple agents in parallel on the same project to be not super functional. Theres just a lot of weird things, agents get confused about work trees, git conflicts abound, and I found the administrative overhead to be too heavy. I think plenty of people are working on streamlining the orchestration issue.

In the mean time, I combat the ADD by working on a few projects in parallel. This seems to work pretty well for now.

It's still cat herding, but the thing is that refactors are now pretty quick. You just have to have awareness of them

I was thinking it'd be cool to have an IDE that did coloring of, say, the last 10 git commits to a project so you could see what has changed. I think robust static analysis and code as data tools built into an IDE would be powerful as well.

The agents basically see your codebase fresh every time you prompt. And with code changes happening much more regularly, I think devs have to build tools with the same perspective.

I would also be interested on resources on "agents write most of your code" if you can share some.

Same here, especially when I keep catching things like DRY violations and a lack of overall architecture. Everything feels tacked on.

To give them the benefit of doubt, perhaps these people provide such detailed spec that they basically write code in natural language.