As much as I like Claude Code, Boris has done a lot of harm by encouraging software engineering practices that lead to slopware. We have two camps of people at work, the first camp are the agent goes brrr. They don't understand the code they write. They have loops running, agent orchestrators or agent hype du jour. The second camp is people who are inundated with PRs, are holding the line on quality, and just exhausted. We've also had some management pressures where they think people are wasting time looking at code. Perhaps because some podcast they might be listening to, somebody says coding is largely solved.

> I don’t prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude and figuring out what to do. My job is to write loops.

This is going to be a net negative on software quality for people who take this up, in my opinion.

I call out Boris but I also don't think he's being malicious. He's at the center of an important technological revolution and it would be hard not to get excited. I just wished he advocated for a more balanced and a realistic perspective.

Quoting the creator of CC holds little value in my opinion. I too call my product good.

> opting out of this fully machine-driven future may not be an option.

I am contemplating whether I want to stay inside this rat race.

I completely agree with the conclusion of this blog post, by the way. I feel uneasy, and I do not enjoy the work I deliver using LLMs. I think OP did a really good job on capturing at least my current state.

> You Cannot Quite Opt Out

I am so over this. I cannot take anyone seriously that claims inevitability of their ideas, and how you must adopt them without "being left behind". If these tools are so good and so capable the result should be able to speak for themselves rather than this FOMO inducing, emotional language.

Loops work when you spend the proper amount of time to understand what you want ahead of time. The prerequisite is clarity — enough clarity that you could write a careful specification that you could hand off to a junior colleague.

Often, it takes 5-6 broken crappy versions of a thing until you understand that. There is no accelerating the 5-6 broken crappy versions - there’s no agent tech that’s going to help your meat brain avoid thinking time.

So most of my time is iterating between these two phases: I don’t understand what I want, I need to read and write and play with code, okay it’s been long enough I think I know what I want (it is extremely easy to deceive yourself) … okay now I do actually know what I want and I can write a loop.

Many people think they can jump ahead with agents. You cannot fake understanding or clarity. It is painfully obviously when someone skipped that meat brain understanding phase.

>Yet even with a lot of manual steering, that type of code does not come out of LLMs naturally, and even if the code comes out naturally like that, they will still attempt to handle now impossible errors.

This is something I’ve struggled to fight against in many PR reviews. Especially once already written, convincing someone that their excessive null checking is harmful is an uphill battle. Short of better modeling (and languages that allow for sum types to enable it), I haven’t been able to come up with a universally convincing argument against this kind of “shotgun parsing.”

Maybe it really just isn’t that big of a deal? But when actually reading through and refactoring a codebase I’ve always found it frustrating to manage these unnecessary checks. Sometimes they’re nearly impossible to delete safely once present without first adding some kind of logging or broad investigation.

Code is part of a shared and built understanding of an information system.

If these loopers mean we all have to move at this continuous wave of software happening, then we get to the highest levels of logical information system design and its all human judgement and balancing of business requirements to fit a given niche in a company or market. So all the programmers have to become business analysts/market researchers/businessmen...except the specific niches where AI tooling can't really clank well...or the end of the subsidized AI token era makes all this looping too expensive to continue. This feels like expert systems and symbolics lisps machines redux, where we briefly ran into the fact that its not so much the code itself not being able to do stuff, it's that your company's org always gets shipped, so if you can't change your company org, your software only has so much flexibility.

Dataflow diagrams and domain knowledge / domain modeling / ubiquitous languages may become the metalanguage that we start to use and set the standards for quality, functional, and non-functional standards and conventions. We make the "looper clankers" ensure that they fulfill that data / behavior / performance contracts before saying what "done" is, because "done" is no longer just code that compiles, code that builds, code that deploys, or even code that sits in production; it's code that fulfills all of the user requirements, operator requirements, and maintainer requirements. So, the language used may be required to make us all turn into business analysts and software architects more than syntax knowers. The revenge of UML and the return of declarative / logical design / BDD triumphing?

(Typo scan by gemma4-12b but I didn't let it alter my message)

> the right fix is not "handle every malformed case." ... [LLMs] will still attempt to handle now impossible errors.

This is the number one code smell from LLMs and I don't know why they are so obsessed with it. In python, it often comes as `hasattr` checks on types that are defined to have that attribute, in a code base that is fully type-checked.

Why do they do that? Is it from pre-training or re-enforcement? If that latter, can the labs please fix this?

I am 100% for fully agentic loops... for tasks other than engineering.

I'm not willing to outsource the understanding how things work part of myself. That part of myself is what got me into computing in the first place.

If this work becomes simply a matter of describing intent to a machine (probably through an Issue, like a user), and going to check on the result when you get the 'done' notification: I'm done.

It's possible to use the tools to do awesome things without letting go of full system understanding of the parts that you look after.

I'm a software developer from way back, using tools and languages that coding agents are far less familiar with.

So when I use an agent to write code, it's in languages I'm less familiar with, and often using libraries I know nothing about.

All to say, my part of the process often ends up being:

1. "Here's what I'm looking for, in detail" 2. "That's not right. Here's one way it's not right, and a specific example. Please fix that." 3. Sometimes I give suggestions for how what is going wrong might be happening, or conceptually how to work around the issue. 4. And iterate on 2-3 until the result is close enough.

That's a loop I'd love to automate.

I keep thinking about at which point I should not force myself into the loop. As a developer I really like working on the code structure, making it clearer, thinking about good abstraction, breaking into modules, etc. I really take pleasure in it. At the same time I understand that at some point I am becoming the limiting factor.

If the point of the software is benefit people, should I still care about how the code looks.

Right now, I still think that the answer is yes, but in 3 years? in 10 years?

> My current status is that I have not had much success with this way of working for code I deeply care about

If something is judgement heavy, "code i care deeply about", then i don't really agree with the direction of travel here. Don't try to delegate decisions you care deeply about.

I do like the framing of agent loop vs harness loop, but only delegate stuff that you can accurately specify in advance, that usually means stuff that's repeatable in my case ("hey go see how i did X, do that but for Y"), and that inherently means stuff that's predictable.

For stuff where lack of my judgement as input is just going to cause me to say "no", we're down to collaborating in the "agent loop" as Armin puts it. And that's totally fine. It's fast, but also safe.

Remember before AI coding assistants, sometimes you'd get an engineer join your team who was SUPER productive, your peers would be jealous "oh yeah but you guys only got all that done because you have X on your team!" - they didn't live the curse of having that kind of person around - if you don't have them PERFECTLY aligned, then they run off at break neck speed in the wrong direction.

Part of the problem is that models don't have a strong sense of taste, part of the problem is that the context in which projects exist is incompletely represented in the LLM context, and part of the problem is that LLMs tend to be myopic.

The lack of taste can be mitigated to some degree by improved training, though taste is not a stationary distribution in humans (see trends/fads/etc), we can at least better track the cutting edge. I think this area still has low hanging fruit but frontier labs are more concerned with being able to solve problems than the style of the solution right now (for evidence of this just look at the Opus 4.5 -> 4.8 arc).

The problem of incomplete context is partly a human problem and partly a harness/interconnectivity problem.

LLM Myopia is a harder problem to solve just by virtue training models on question/answer pairs. Countering this requires emphasizing RL on solution paths rather than just prompt/response, which is doable but harder.

This.

> Present-day models tend to produce code that is too defensive, too complex, too local in its reasoning. They avoid strong invariants. They add fallbacks instead of making bad states impossible. They duplicate code, invent bad abstractions, and paper over unclear design with more machinery. Worse though: I so far see very little progress of this improving.

Context-smithing can help to a degree and cyclomatic-like complexity rules tend to make matters worse. So, you either roll up your sleeves or close your eyes and hope for the best. I've had limited success with the latter.

We used a “loop” before it was called that to drive MS-DOC support into Tritium. Based on that experience, I take issue with this:

“There are already impressive examples of large automatic porting efforts, including the reported work around moving parts of Bun from Zig to Rust.” (Emphasis added.)

It will be impressive if/when the Bun team is able to pick up and continue extending and supporting Bun. For us, MS-DOC remains read-only and probably perpetually buggy until we reimplement with a better understanding. Until then, it’s definitely not “impressive”. Functional? Maybe. Impressive, no.

In my own ham-fisted experiments with coding loops, one pathology I have noticed is that the LOC just spirals out of control. That's likely because of the layers of defensive fixes, etc., that get built. That inevitably causes context bloat (or at least navigational friction) and results in quality decline.

I wonder how many loop-related issues could be addressed by simply fixing a LOC budget, or assigning a cost in some way. Unclear how you would dial in the right numbers, though.

The issue is that whilst the loops will initially lead to good results they will be less and less as context gets bigger and bigger and tougher to understand for human and AI.

So it depends really on the size of your project.

We've had great success with agents thus far at my job. A year into Clauding and all our dev metrics are up while our downtime has remained steady.

Being an iOS engineer, much of my engineering cycle these days is going from Figma/PRD → spec → code. After being handed off to QA, we handle the bugs and product slips as they come through, while we simultaneously build/spec the upcoming addition. This is basically the same agile style that's been popular for 20y, just super-powered with agents.

How might someone accomplish the same goals using loops instead?

Was everyone collectively lying over the past fifty years of software development when they repeatedly said more != better?

For specific use cases, performance and security and all sorts of tuning it could be truly amazing. But maybe loops should be like a tool we make a choice to use when optimal.

I just wonder if in the future we’ll come to realize that we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water. That you can take a beat to understand your code and do change management, and choose the right tool for the job, and curate and say no and have agency.

An observation might be - no one writes code like Google “you’re not google” is something that gets thrown around in software shops all the time. Why is it we all think we’re going to be writing code like Anthropic?

Generally interesting reflections here, yet I see the same kind of myopia and fatalism that is rampant in our (fashion) industry:

> yet I have no doubts that this looping future is going to be our future despite the fact that I presently resent it

Why would anyone concluded this? LLMs are just one kind of application of MLs to software production. There is a vast solution space for automating parts of software production. The idea that slop loops are the inevitable future because they happen to be accelerating output at the moment just seems profoundly short-sighted and lacking in vision.

These new AI trends are very tiresome, very similar to 2021 crypto mania - both trigger a lot of FOMO. If we have loops that write code and we don't need to verify anything, why are the devs still here? What's point of even learning this new trick as a dev if you truly believe that this can be used without any intervention? If loops work then it follows that a loop of loop works too - why hire any people at all? Just run a bunch of loops and build a profitable business, but then what's your moat? Any person can now launch loops on top of loops.

A friendly reminder to just do 9 to 5 and touch lots of grass. None of this shit represents industry trends, majority of people still use chat interfaces and copy blocks of code. There’s zero early adopter advantage here, only FOMO and lots of anxiety.

I honestly wonder if this kind of stuff really brings something to the table. Like I use opus for sometime and certainly I can put it to good use and optimize some parts of my day to day job (programmer). But it fails so hard in such simple tasks that it seems to me that putting it in loop can't just magically make everything better, unassisted. Does anyone actually uses agents and loops to create new software, new technology? Has anyone created with those systems, software they couldn't produce otherwise technologically wise? Or is it at best just an accelerator, cutting off on the building time?

I think this is a common sentiment among heavy users of AI that also still cares about code quality.

I've built up a skill harness and review flow that makes Opus generate slop-free code 90% of the time. But the remaining 10% requires me to stay at the helm. Especially in the early stages.

I would love to use loops to automate more, but I couldn't do it with the current generation models.

And on the back of my mind I'm still evaluating the possible future where we are forced to API pricing. I'm currently paying $400 for Opus, and use around 1.5-2 billion tokens per day. This will cost around $20k/m with API pricing. And I don't want to even imagine the possible scenario of getting locked out of frontier models because of politics.

Will the models get better to cut me out of the loop completely? I believe so. Will the open source models catch up tho SOTA models, and diversify from China-only? I hope so. Otherwise 2 superpowers will wield a soft power that can cripple the tech industries of all other countries.

This is really terrible advice right now for most people.

I've had to rip out a lot of pretty terrible code made by engineers who have tried this.

I don't disagree that eventually, "loops" when combined with unlimited tokens and amazing models in the hands of people who know how to set them up right will be amazing. But for the typical Claude Code user, it's disaster.

The problem is not that loops write bad code once. Humans do that too. The problem is that loops apply local pressure repeatedly: add a fallback, add a guard, special-case the failing input, quiet the exception, satisfy the test. Over time that selects for code that is more survivable in the short term but less intelligible in the long term.

The post suggests fear about a surge of increasing amounts of code by loops and loops of agents.

I don’t know if I like the current world without it though.

80% of different teams code the code is poorly tested. The code doesn’t handle data consistency or asynchronous code properly because the engineers don’t know better (and frankly don’t care enough).

Dependency handling is poorly managed leading to low quality operations with improper dashboards, alarms, and ops.

Badly managed processes leads to people doing monkey work signing off checklists rather than automation.

Frankly… why is keeping any of that good? It really pisses me off seeing people accept any of that low quality but that standard is the default and not the outlier.

I and my friends go back and forth, every day, on whether coding with LLMs is a net plus or a net negative.

I'm at the point where I think it's dumb to not do it but also dumb to do it. I have no real answer.

I have settled on using LLMs for everything but to spend more time honing the quality and cleanliness with LLM passes afterwards than I generally would have taken to write it well myself in the first place. This is in some ways the worst of both worlds, but it somehow lets me bypass akrasia while still getting pretty good code out, so I consider it superior to how I worked before. I get more done in three months even if I get less done in a day.

    > I am contemplating whether I want to stay inside this rat race.

I'm in the same boat. I'm hoping to go back to school in 2027 and be out of work that revolves around programming in 5 years.

I'm not enthusiastic about the field anymore, which sucks, because I used to love working in programming.

> I am contemplating whether I want to stay inside this rat race.

Same. I'm currently trying to find _my next thing_ and all anyone wants to talk about is how I'm using AI and it's absolutely maddening. It's become a lazy, lossy proxy for productivity. I've had a few intros for the types of orchestration engineering roles which are described in this post and they're just completely unappealing -- especially the prescriptive aspects. Like, the sort of JDs I'm seeing are variants of, "we want a back-end developer who has experience with XYZ but they must use agentic harnesses to do their work." Why does any serious person give a flying fuck how the end result is reached? The flip side of all this is that rates are also being driven through the floor by loop cowboys who are generating steaming piles of shit which are _good enough_ ... until they aren't. I'm being completely serious when I say that stocking shelves at Tractor Supply is becoming more appealing by the day and I also just thought to myself, "Maybe I should just join the Army while they'll still take me?"

> I feel uneasy, and I do not enjoy the work I deliver using LLMs.

I have basically stopped writing code in my spare time since the advent of AI. Before I felt like I was working on a classic car. Was it a practical use of my time? No. I could go out and download software that did what I wanted. Did I have fun doing it? Yes, the act of working on it was important, I felt I was still learning and improving as I did.

Nowadays I see people doing far more in a month than I could in a year and I feel like its all a waste, like I just spent the past few years transcribing a phonebook while standing next to a photocopier.

I don't know if that'll ever change. I can't even pretend I was doing something prestigious and artisan like watchmaking because I wasn't a good programmer beforehand.

No, but you always have the option to opt out of being a maintainer. If "the community" is going to behave badly and bury you under a barrage of vibeslop you can just leave.

EDIT: there's a version of this that could be positive--everything could get a hell of a lot more secure. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

Likely just that they err on the unnecessary error handling than missing error handling. They likely penalize runtime errors harshly in the training

I suspect it's mostly the training data. I am also on team "make illegal states unrepresentable". It may get talked about a lot on HN, but I'm still at the point that I'm surprised when I see a code base that I didn't write in the wild that does a really good job of it, either open source or at work. Most programmers still think in terms of picking up pieces and fixing errors at the point where the error message pops out rather than making it so the error can't happen and the data reflects that.

I say "mostly" because I think there's also a problem with AIs thinking this way in their current state. That last level of human understanding of a code base, where the human holistically understands the flow of those guarantees, is a challenge to give them right now. On the raw code level, this sort of thing often involves enough code to easily blow out their context window. Trying to summarize it in memories-style files has its own problems; just because there is text written down about the guarantees doesn't mean that the AI is going to get the right info out of it, any more than a human might from just reading the code. I won't say it's "impossible" to give an AI this understanding because I'm not sure it is, but it is a level of understanding of the code that even if you get them to have it, their practices tend to fight against it.

My own solution to this problem has largely been to give up on them getting this. I prompt a solution to the problem the way that most people do, then if I want to make bad illegal states unrepresentable I prompt the AI through the process of the necessary refactorings, unless it's so small that I just do it myself. Given a lot of code that uses maps/dicts and arrays and strings and ints, if you prompt it through making those more thoroughly typed, it's actually pretty good at it. I've not had a lot of luck getting good designs out of single prompts, even when I get detailed. Treating it as two separate tasks seems to work out well.

And watch the diffs on the types carefully; AI loves to sneak past a ".JustSetItAndIgnoreAllThePreAndPostConditions(string)" method. After all, I suspect there's plenty of training data of "types that are nicely structured to make error states unrepresentable and then a later maintainer came along and added a 'JustEffingDoIt' method that broke everything" in the field. One of the best defenses is to make sure that the type implementing these things is in its own file and you can easily look at all the methods it adds on those types and smack it when it does that. I've tried slathering warnings about not doing this and explaining the pre- and post-conditions being maintained in the docs but the change seems marginal.

It’s because it matches the patterns they are trained to follow. They don’t understand the code. They can’t reason about the actual logic flow. They can only work with patterns.

Sorry to say but the solution is to stop using python. The models are trained to code defensively assuming historically representative python codebases. The models trust the types a lot more in languages where the canonical historical examples trust the types because the language is constructed around that premise.

I personally have not had good luck with loops due to similar issues as the post author - but if you were to port your flow to "looping" it would be something like:

- An automation that periodically checks for PRD's at a given location that have not yet been implemented.

- If it sees one not implemented, it puts a lock on it (so other agents later don't pick it up while its still working) and implements the PRD in code, assuming it has the figma link and all specs required.

- When its done it makes a PR, waits for if it passes and even in some cases automatically merges into your staging/preview enironments and just pings you with a build/URL. You can then leave feedback or something and it can also also poll for pending feedback. Or you just mark it looks good, the agent then merges the PR, moves the PRD to implemented status, maybe even writes/updates docs and cleans up any temporary work.

- Repeat checking for new PRD's every T unit time. (10 minutes, 1 hour, etc)

This is how people say you should be looping - you never even cared or looked at the code, and also never prompted the agent yourself.

But I find most agents are often pretty bad still at replicating UI vs making something from scratch and most design specs are still not as detailed around how things look at all sizes, in all scenarios etc. Design seems to be one of those things that still requires a human to validate. And then all the things the post author mentions about it not being willing to apply hard constraints, minimize impossible states, validate at edges and prevent horrendous overchecking of things. etc.

Use appium or XCTest or swift testing; generate the tests first (failing) from the spec.

The loop is basically then a while loop:

While (tests fail) { trigger agent: spec, failures list }

for bugs, write failing tests.

Its basically TDD.

Loops do nothing useful beyond making the “spec -> code” step more “hands off” and let you be confident that the code you write does what is intended.

Obviously you see the issue: writing the loop harness is > effort than not having it…

…but the idea is that you run “spec first” and are totally hands off on the code, just updating the validation step and then waiting while the agent iterates over and over to solve for some solution that passes the loop harness.

People suggest that it is possible to go, eg. directly figma/jira to harness via (random tool here), saving even more time and invoking even fewer humans, but thats currently, as far as I can tell, actually just hype.

No one is actually doing that effectively.

Loops are currently carefully hand crafted, which makes them tedious and of questionable value imo.

Would you have a breakdown of costs/benefit? Can you say with certainty that this workflow has increased productivity so much that you are seeing profit increases that you wouldn't have otherwise noticed just by hiring more people? Asking with no ill intention, I just crave for actual business cases that make sense, and yet no-one seems to be able to reliably produce that.