Remix.run Logo
▲ ogoffart 5 hours ago

I have noticed the same on my project.

The agent helps a lot to fix bugs. Just point the agents at the bug reports. They do the reproduction, debugging and fixes. We "just" have to review. (Sometimes ask more details and tell we'd prefer another approach.) This makes bug fixing much faster and automated.

And at the same time, it seems we get less bug reports to our library. I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

So overall, the open bug count is decreasing. Which somehow feels good.

On the other hand, we get a lot of PR made by other's people agents, which can be a bit overwhelming when it's just a huge code drop. We can't easily review that.

▲timhh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> > and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

Yeah I've definitely noticed this. On a project I'm working on Opus 5.5 found a bug in Smithay and another in Winit. It did tell me about them but its preferred solution was just to work around them locally. To be fair we don't really want agents going off and reporting bugs automatically...

I don't run any big open source projects but I think my preferred solution to AI PRs would be to get my AI to implement the same thing, and give then afterwards tell it to look at the PR for anything it missed. Then I at least know that I'm using a competent model and it reduces the danger of just blindly accepting someone else's code. (And obviously review the code if you have time and care, but that isn't always the case.)

▲cocoto 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes the default behavior of working around the bug is good, that’s what everyone was doing anyway pre-LLMs. The good practice is to report the bug. Simply add instructions to your agents to report you the bugs it found in the summary, so you can check the bug and report it correctly upstream.

▲0x696C6961 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I usually report the bug and leave a link to it in a comment beside the work-around code.

▲majormajor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

Claude comes up with some truly delicious insane workarounds these days. Like launching something in a subprocess and capturing stdout/stderr and doing string parsing on info logs because of a desire for some hook not exposed by API (or at least that it didn't find on its quick scan).

There's probably no such thing as semver reliability for dependencies anymore in stuff that agents glue together, since they will poke at ANY sort of way of getting additional insight or control if they want it.

▲jacquesm 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's so fragile.

▲ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲fock 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

also the agent might introduce bugs, just like a human (see rsync which now has very busy development). Likely we (and the LLM) just won't notice them as easily. Fun times I guess.

▲throw73847939 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And? People also introduce bugs. If you are too lazy to setup verification harness, you will be even more lazy to do all testing manually.

Rsync is hopelessly underfunded under staffed. Current developer was forced to takeover, because everyone quit!

▲veqq 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think user just use their agents to code, and agents don't report bugs, they just work it around somehow.

It's quite a pity, preventing us from improving our model of the domain, from Naurian theory building and presenting a perfected API etc.