AI Coding Agents Need a Source of Truth
Bigger prompts do not fix drifting agent plans. A good workflow starts with a small brief, human review, task sizing, and checks against real artifacts.
AI-assisted workflows, agentic coding, and the messy reality of shipping software with LLMs. What works, what does not, and what people keep getting wrong.
Bigger prompts do not fix drifting agent plans. A good workflow starts with a small brief, human review, task sizing, and checks against real artifacts.
Claude Opus 4.7 scores 87.6% on SWE-Bench Verified. Your daily experience probably does not. The gap is not only the model. It is the setup around it.
Most complaints about coding agents are complaints about empty context. CLAUDE.md, distilled project docs, and a few slash commands change the same model from autocomplete into something useful.
Four months ago I asked ChatGPT a dumb question while walking my dog. It told me building a programming language wasn’t that hard. Now I have a compiler, a type system, generics, structured concurrency, and a garbage collector.
Stateless agents repeat mistakes. lgtm and snap use a findings file, shared codebase context, and recovery loops so later tasks can use what earlier tasks already learned.
One prompt works for small hacks. Larger projects need product context, technical constraints, module boundaries, sprint-sized slices, and tight test loops.