There is a huge difference between greenfield development and working with an existing codebase.

I'm not trying to discredit your experience and maybe it really is something wrong with the model.

But in my experience those first few prompts / features always feel insanely magical, like you're working with a 10x genius engineer.

Then you start trying to build on the project, refactor things, deploy, productize, etc. and the effectiveness drops off a cliff.

▲

bityard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This has been my (admittedly limited) experience as well. LLMs are great at initial bring-up, good at finding bugs, bad at adding features.

But I'm optimistic that this will gradually improve in time.

	▲	fsloth 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ve had good, alternative experience with my sideproject (adashape.com) where most of the codebase is now written by Claude / Codex. The codebase itself is architected and documented to be LLM friendly and claude.md gives very strong harnesses how to do things. As architect Claude is abysmal, but when you give it an existing software pattern it merely needs to extend, it’s so good it still gives me probably something like 5x feature velocity boost. Plus when doing large refactorings, it forgets much fever things than me. Inventing new architecture is as hard as ever and it’s not great help there - unless you can point it to some well documented pattern and tell it ”do it like that please”.

▲

SkyPuncher 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't the case. I basically did an entire business/project/product exploration before building the first feature.

Even after deleting everything from the first feature and going back to the checkpoint just before initial development, I can no longer get it to accomplish anything meaningful without my direct guidance.