The author seems to think they've hit upon something revolutionary...

They've actually hit upon something that several of us have evolved to naturally.

LLM's are like unreliable interns with boundless energy. They make silly mistakes, wander into annoying structural traps, and have to be unwound if left to their own devices. It's like the genie that almost pathologically misinterprets your wishes.

So, how do you solve that? Exactly how an experienced lead or software manager does: you have systems write it down before executing, explain things back to you, and ground all of their thinking in the code and documentation, avoiding making assumptions about code after superficial review.

When it was early ChatGPT, this meant function-level thinking and clearly described jobs. When it was Cline it meant cline rules files that forced writing architecture.md files and vibe-code.log histories, demanding grounding in research and code reading.

Maybe nine months ago, another engineer said two things to me, less than a day apart:

- "I don't understand why your clinerules file is so large. You have the LLM jumping through so many hoops and doing so much extra work. It's crazy."

- The next morning: "It's basically like a lottery. I can't get the LLM to generate what I want reliably. I just have to settle for whatever it comes up with and then try again."

These systems have to deal with minimal context, ambiguous guidance, and extreme isolation. Operate with a little empathy for the energetic interns, and they'll uncork levels of output worth fighting for. We're Software Managers now. For some of us, that's working out great.

Control + click?

I'm seeing the downvotes. I'm sorry folks feel that way. I'm regretting my honesty.

Edit: I'd like to reply to this comment in particular but can't in a threaded reply, so will do that here: "Ah, super secret problem domains that have been thoroughly represented in the LLM training data. Nice."

This exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of why coding agents powered by LLMs are such a game changer.

The assumption this poster is making is that LLMs are regurgitating whole cloth after being trained on whole cloth.

This is a common mistake among lay people and non-practitioners. The reality is that LLMs have gained the ability to program, by learning from the code of others. Much like a human would learn from the code of others, and then be able to create a completely novel application.

The difference between a human programmer an an agentic coder is that the agent has much broader and deeper expertise across more programming languages, and understands more design patterns, more operating systems, more about programming history, etc etc and it uses all this knowledge to fulfill the task you've set it to. That's not possible for any single human.

It's important for the poster to take two realities on board: Firstly, agentic coding agents are not regurgitating whole cloth from whole cloth. Instead they are weaving new creations because they have learned how to program. Secondly, agentic coding agents have broader and deeper knowledge than any human that will ever exist, and they never tire, and their mood and energy level never changes. In fact that improves on a continuous basis as the months go by and progress continues. This means we can, as individual practitioners or fast moving teams, create things that were never before possible for us without raising huge amounts of money and hiring large very expensive teams, and then having the overhead of lining everyone up behind a goal AND dealing with the human issues that arise, including communication overhead.

This is a very exciting time. Especially if you're curious, energetic, and are willing to suspend disbelief to go and take a look.

I used to be a full-time developer back in the day. Then I was a manager. Then I was a CTO. I stopped doing the day-to-day development and even stopped micro-managing the detailed design.

When I tried to code again, I found I didn't really have the patience for it -- having to learn new frameworks, APIs, languages, tricky little details, I used to find it engrossing: it had become annoying.

But with tools like Claude Code and my knowledge about how software should be designed and how things should work, I am able to develop big systems again.

I'm not 20% more productive than I was. I'm not 10x more productive than I was either. I'm infinity times more productive because I wouldn't be doing it at all otherwise, realistically: I'd either hire someone to do it, or not do it, if it wasn't important enough to go through the trouble to hire someone.

Sure, if you are a great developer and spend all day coding and love it, these tools may just be a hindrance. But if you otherwise wouldn't do it at all they are the opposite of that.

Claude Code is hard to describe. It’s almost like I changed jobs when I started using it. I’ve been all-in with Claude as a workflow tool, but this is literally steroids.

If you haven’t tried it, I can’t recommend it enough. It’s the first time it really does feel like working with a junior engineer to me.

Is the number of em-dashes in this marketing copy indicative of the kind of output that the model produces? If so, might want to tone it down a bit.