Low-Hanging LLM Fruit for Better Agentic Coding from Frontier Models
Peter Marreck (@pmarreck) on X: the upgrade code-LLMs need isn't more intelligence, it's "adult supervision by default." Right now they're optimised for plausible output; what they need is provable correctness — every failure mode that frontier coding agents trip over has a thirty-year-old workaround in the practitioner toolkit. His seven-point list reads like a senior engineer's review template applied to LLM workflow: greenfield → spec first; new feature → plan → checklist → TDD; bug → failing test before fix; code review → systematic lenses, "looks good" isn't a standard; shipping → step-by-step deploy doc; scope creep → every new LOC must justify itself; golden rule → "If it can't be checked, it will eventually be wrong." Closing line lands clean: "LLMs aren't bad programmers. They're unchecked ones. And we already solved that problem decades ago."
Was this useful?