The point is the agent writes the specs and the human reviews and revises or asks for another rewrite that takes 90 seconds or less. So specs are both cheaper and better than anything I've seen before. They still get a lot wrong and it is hard to review them very carefully, but its easier than reviewing code to suss out design intent.

▲

ytoawwhra92 2 days ago | parent [-]

The point is that sometimes you don't know the spec is wrong until you've built the software and it's being used.

▲

9dev 2 days ago | parent [-]

Still though, that cycle can be iterated many times in a single day. Write a spec, let the agent build it, use the software, evaluate results, repeat.

▲

ytoawwhra92 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, that's agile software development.

▲

9dev 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, not quite. The specifications we use for agents make any ticket written before them pale in comparison. That enables a hybrid workflow that is both spec-driven and "agile", in the sense that you're doing very rapid development cycles.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

zelphirkalt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Until the agents start touching things that already worked well before and break them.

	▲	jeremyjh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		They do need a competent developer operating them. That has nothing to do with whether nor not specs have value.