Claude's code review is a lot less interesting then getting Claude to reproduce the bugs it claims to find in code review, which has had an absurdly high hit rate for me.
The biggest problem I see with how a bunch of people use these tools is they go to them as an oracle, rather then letting them be plugged into and interactive with problem.
And it's in that later context that Claude is amazing: it can run tests and setup scenarios which would take days or get stuck in some weird problem loop. And then you can just say "okay, walk me through this problem" and see it yourself right there.
> The biggest problem I see with how a bunch of people use these tools is they go to them as an oracle, rather then letting them be plugged into and interactive with problem.
At work they have some scale of how "advanced" of an "AI engineer" you are.
IIRC, using the model interactively means you're stuck and "level 3." IIRC, level 5 (the best) is having some agent interview you about what to do, generate a story from that, then some other agent consumes the story and implements it, etc. I think you're supposed to check their work at each step, but that sounds inhuman and unfulfilling.
The biggest problem I see with how a bunch of people use these tools is they go to them as an oracle, rather then letting them be plugged into and interactive with problem.
And it's in that later context that Claude is amazing: it can run tests and setup scenarios which would take days or get stuck in some weird problem loop. And then you can just say "okay, walk me through this problem" and see it yourself right there.
At work they have some scale of how "advanced" of an "AI engineer" you are.
IIRC, using the model interactively means you're stuck and "level 3." IIRC, level 5 (the best) is having some agent interview you about what to do, generate a story from that, then some other agent consumes the story and implements it, etc. I think you're supposed to check their work at each step, but that sounds inhuman and unfulfilling.