965
Peer reviewing is torture now (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

See, that's the issue. People letting it "drive itself" get worse results. You should be the one holding the standards and guiding the model, otherwise you will be frustrated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I saw this advice too, the problem with being very detailed is a question why not use a less ambiguous languages to do it?

    Why not write the explanation in language like Python. Why should I write it in English when I can say the same thing in Python and it is actually easier to do for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago*

    This kind of specification applies to the agent behavior or the agent behavior in a project. You don't write it on every conversation, you write/review it once for the project or agent and let the harness include it on every conversation. You can even ask the agent to scan the codebase and pull desirable patterns out of it for future sessions.

    The entire point of using an agent is to not have to write everything yourself, so that when you write "implement feature X", the feature gets implemented in a way that makes sense in that project, is reviewed, refactored, and tested by agents, and it's good enough to bring in a human reviewer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent