All Topics
All Topics
Technology
Technology
Design
Design
Programming
Programming
Science
Science
News
News
Gaming
Gaming
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business
Business
Finance
Finance
Sports
Sports
Health
Health
Food
Food
Travel
Travel
Art
Art
Music
Music
Books
Books
Education
Education
Politics
Politics
Personal
Personal
No algorithm. No AI slop. No ads. Just RSS. Pro-human. Indie writers. Real journalism. Open web. Chronological. Hand toasted.

The pitfalls of coding agents: why backpressure is the missing ingredient

By

Lucas F. Costa

19h ago· 31 min readenOpinion

Summary

The article critiques the two common approaches to using coding agents (LLMs for code generation). The first approach—letting the agent run unattended—is fast but leads to bugs, chaotic changes, and unmanageable PRs that erode code review standards. The second—treating the agent as glorified autocomplete with human review of every step—is safer but defeats the purpose of using an agent by being too slow. The article argues for a middle ground: applying "backpressure" mechanisms to balance speed and safety when using AI coding agents.

Key quotes

· 3 pulled
The first is to let the LLM run unattended and hope the repository survives. This is fast, exciting, and stupid.
The second approach is to treat the agent like glorified autocomplete and force a human to review every tiny step. This is safer, but slow enough to partially defeat the purpose of using an agent in the first place.
It leads to bugs, confused changes, and a flood of PRs that humans cannot review quickly enough, at least not without eventually lowering their standards and merging things they do not really understand.
Snippet from the RSS feed
Hot takes and cold truths on software, startups, and the lies we tell ourselves.

You might also wanna read