Usually when they push back, it’s for obvious reasons, things I already know and actively decided to ignore. They are trained on mediocre software, and it shows.

I like using voice input a lot, I get way more info out of my brain and into the context that way.

Process wise, for bug fixes I usually just throw the ticket in and optionally some thoughts on how to fix. But if I don’t know the cause, I let it write instrumentation tests until the bug is reproed, and then the fix is easy.

For new features in brownfield projects, I usually need to align with team members because we‘re closely aligned between platforms. We iterate on what you could call a spec, which is just a mix of requirements, magic numbers we want, algorithms we‘ve picked (often by vibing prototypes), and sometimes going very specific on parts that must be done right. Eg for interfaces with other teams, and there’s not yet a document to describe that, we put that in the spec as well. We do use agents to shoot holes in those specs, and often they find inconsistencies. But architecturally, they seem to get caught up too much in what’s already in those specs, and personally I haven’t seen any worthwhile feedback that I‘d have taken up.

Sometimes we use this spec to vibe a first draft. Often the draft is so good that it can be bent to our liking. Sometimes, it just serves as a reservoir of ideas, and the feature must be implemented (with assistance) by re-assembling the pieces differently.