He admits the real hole himself: "this doesn't catch spec misunderstandings. If your spec was wrong to begin with, the checks will pass."

But there's a second problem underneath that one. Acceptance criteria are ephemeral. You write them before prompting, Playwright runs against them, and then where do they go? A Notion doc. A PR comment. Nowhere permanent. Next time an agent touches that feature, it's starting from zero again.

The commit that ships the feature should carry the criteria that verified it. Git already travels with the code. The reasoning behind it should too.

▲

dwaltrip 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Did AI write this?

▲

vidimitrov 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Nope - though I’ll take it as a compliment either way. It’s a problem I’ve been sitting with for a while, so the answer came out more formed than I expected. You disagree?

▲

dwaltrip 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It has that punchy, breathless cadence... shrugs

▲

rrvsh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Its actually a pretty good idea/framework for writing commit descriptions, especially for smaller changes that don't have any nuances to note in the commit

	▲	svstoyanovv 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why only small changes tho? I think it can also work with larger changes if you commit more regularly. And with agentic coding or even with autonomous agentic coding, you need to do it regularly and create these contextual checkpoints, no?