Trivially debunked with the prompt "find technical debt to fix".

https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b7...

Here's the result of a prompt that specifically looks for correctness and simplifications to make "by construction" before I added "Design bar: ensure correctness by construction rather than by convention" to AGENTS.md:

https://github.com/danneu/danterm/blob/749942ffa1198f520c8b7...

▲

blueline 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Linking to an 8800 line claude written wall of text reinforces the parent's point.

▲

hombre_fatal 17 hours ago | parent [-]

How? Because it found too many opportunities to improve the code beyond what we'd want to review as a human?

Each file is a list of findings that includes the justification/verification of each finding in the same file.

This is just what work looks like, especially tech debt repayment. It's analysis, reasoning, and justification. Those produce words.

▲

blueline 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds good, have fun with that.

	▲	hombre_fatal 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did. Just about all of the findings were re-verified to be good and then implemented by a rigorous pipeline of clankers, and the project was improved. If it weren't for me insisting that I manually sign off on the solution of every finding, then it would have been fully automated too.