I get much better results the more thought I put into crafting my prompt. including using llms to help create that prompt. There's definitely a declining rate of return on that time, but thinking about the problem and carefully describing the context can take fairly deep thought. I do think it's in shorter bursts than when doing all of the work, but I get that same feeling of 'bah, where was I?' if I get interrupted while creating the prompt for a more complex feature. On the other hand, I spend a lot less time in flow state while debugging - it's way easier to describe a bug to an llm (often can just paste in the exception or link to error log).

I'm using my ADHD hyper focus skills while flagging issues that the LLM is doing.

Reading 10x more code than before puts me straight into the zone. (In a language that I find interesting: Elixir)

My own process is improving so much that I had only one bug last week that was fixed immediately after the error tracker caught.

But yeah I feel more tired sooner. So it's oneto three hyper focus zones per day, just like before.

The difference is that I enter faster, and now I'm not afraid of leaving the task and resuming later, since I can just ask for a summary of what we did so far.

I'm using two different models from two different providers to cross check the work tho.

I'm very good with bad smells I guess, after years supervising less experienced developers since early days in my long career.

It isn't exactly flow - but at when the prompt comes back it forces me to think. Flow is about getting into a state where I'm thinking so this is surprisingly similar. The prompt is helpful because it gives me a place to focus: does the proposed changes make sense (this is much smaller than the entire code base), and given this is done: do I know anything else that was missed.

Flow comes after when you verify what it did...