> The only way Claude can help improve your code cleanliness is if you write poor code?

No? You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer?

> Code coverage means nothing if you didn't carefully check every test? "and if everything was tested" do you know what code coverage is?

Do you know?

Code coverage only tells what amount of the code gets *touched* by the tests.

To achieve code coverage it's enough to CALL the code, it doesn't tell you anything about the correctness of the tests: they could all end with a return true, and a code coverage tool would be perfectly happy.

So, yes, if you don't carefully check the test suite that the agent writes, it might well be worthless (or simply much less useful than you assume it to be, more realistically).

With "if everything was tested" I meant that you also need to check if the agent wrote all the tests that are needed, besides verifying that the ones it wrote are correct.

> You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer?

Absolutely. It contains a lot, if not majority, of all the code available at our hands right now and can reason, whatever it means for LLMs to reason anyway, about it. It absolutely demolishes average software developer and it’s not even close.

> To achieve code coverage it's enough to CALL the code, it doesn't tell you anything about the correctness of the tests: they could all end with a return true, and a code coverage tool would be perfectly happy.

> So, yes, if you don't carefully check the test suite that the agent writes, it might well be worthless (or simply much less useful than you assume it to be, more realistically).

That’s like saying that if you don’t check every line your coworker writes it becomes worthless.