"Just like with a human developer, if you give your coding agent crappy instructions, if you don't give it proper guidance, if you don't take the time to point it in the right direction, you'll get bad code. If you don't keep an eye on things and continually nudge things in the right direction, you'll end up in the wrong place. No surprise."
"Imagine if you hired a junior developer, gave them a two-sentence instruction, got back something that wasn't quite right, and then fired them because of it. That would be silly, right? Well, that is what a lot of developers are doing with coding agents."
"Saying "I tried agentic coding, and it hallucinated something, so it is clearly worthless" isn't any different."
Coding agents require clear, high-quality instructions and proper guidance to generate correct code. Vague or “crappy” directions lead to bad outputs. Ongoing oversight is needed to keep progress aligned with the intended goal and to correct drift toward the wrong solution. Trust in agentic coding should not be treated as binary. Dismissing an agent after a single imperfect result mirrors firing a junior developer for not getting everything right from minimal instructions. Evaluation should account for instruction quality, feedback loops, and iterative improvement rather than immediate rejection.
#agentic-coding #instruction-quality #code-generation #feedback-and-monitoring #trust-and-evaluation
Read at InfoWorld
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]