热度观测:最近观测 210 赞,达到本渠道热门门槛 100;1.9999 小时内增加 140 赞,平均 +70.0/小时。

← 返回内容列表
𝕏X采集材料

编码智能体的团队实践与使用边界

10-28 12:45 · 北京时间

AI 编程

命中应用场景,需阅读原文判断

原文与观测指标

1 个来源
𝕏X

编码智能体的团队实践与使用边界

Ilya Razenshteyn
查看原文
点赞210采集时的累计值
每小时增长+70.0赞 / 小时 · 观测区间平均值
观测增量+140两次有效记录之间的变化

发布时间:2026-10-28 12:45 · 北京时间

指标采集:10-28 16:00

对比区间:10-28 14:00 至 10-28 16:00 · 2.00 小时 · 净增量 +140

摘要

作者结合对研究人员和工程团队的访谈,讨论编码智能体的使用方法:先写设计文档和变更计划,再实现、测试并合并;对维护性或面向客户的代码,仍需阅读代码并审查测试。

摘要由 AI 生成,请以原文为准。
观测历史 · 最近 2 条 展开 / 收起

缺失不计为零;增长只比较同一指标来源的有效记录,按实际间隔折算每小时。上游缓存可能延迟数值更新。

采集时间 · 北京时间指标数值来源状态
10-28 16:00:08点赞210AI 编程实战已取得
10-28 14:00:08点赞70AI 编程实战已取得
采集原文 展开 / 收起

I interviewed ~2 dozen researchers, engineers, research / engineer managers etc. asking them how they / their teams use coding agents in their w...

I interviewed ~2 dozen researchers, engineers, research / engineer managers etc. asking them how they / their teams use coding agents in their work. Then I sprinkled it with my opinions and hot takes and wrote a substack post (link in the next tweet, I'd be delighted if you subscribe; of course, the post is free and any future post will be free too!) trying to triangulate the current reality of software engineering / industry research as opposed to what gets peddled on social media. TL;DR (3. and 4. are the most important!): 1. Models, harnesses, workflows: don't bother with fancy workflows, they don't really work. Use stock Claude Code / Codex (or Copilot with Claude / GPT models if you are a Microsoft stan), perhaps with subagents in some very special cases. Write a design doc, then plan a change, then implement it, then merge. Wash, rinse, repeat. Don't get swayed by people online who are trying to sell you snake oil in the form of their new harness or workflow. None of this stuff works (in general). 2. Correctness/tests/reading or not reading code: it's OK not to read code if you do one of the following three things. a) One-off stuff / demos, which you need to work on exactly one input. b) Testable / verifiable stuff, e.g., GPU kernels. c) Stuff, where it's OK to be "directionally correct" (ML / data work / research code). In other cases, especially if you require any degree of maintainability / reliability or your code is customer-facing, reading code is still necessary. Reading tests and steering the model to write better tests is a good idea too. It's often good to use a different model to review the code that the other model wrote. Even if you approve the PRs without changing them, reading still helps for future more productive prompting. 3. Team dynamics: if we are not careful, agents can really undermine team dynamics. Two biggest problems are "slop infestation", where over time all PRs / emails / Slack messages end up being unreadable slop, and "overbuilding", where we are building and shipping useless stuff to get recognition or as a form of procrastination. Other, less severe but still important problems include: reduced communication, being secretive about ideas, decreased diversity of thinking, mode collapse of the ideas, trusting LLMs more than people. 4. Call for action: we really need to be careful with preserving team work and collaboration. We still need to "form packs to hunt mammoths", but with coding agents this becomes increasingly harder. Overall, many of the agents-induced problems stem in myopic short-term thinking of the sort "we have a couple of years left until our jobs are fully automated, so I can as well extract as much value as possible, everyone else be damned". While somewhat understandable, I think it’s important to resist these urges, if nothing else, for your own sanity’s sake. [Full disclosure: until 2 months ago, I worked at OpenAI and my work directly contributed to Codex, I'm a big fan of coding agents and quite strongly AI-pilled, but there is little I hate more than fearmongering, gaslighting, lies and rage-bait that are ubiquitous in this space, unfortunately, hence spending time on all of this.]