Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxftw | Hacker News Reader

You have to review the plan and fill in any missing gaps or correct anything that's wrong. Plan mode often isn't one shot, it might take a few iterations, but once the plan is nailed down, the results are usually very good.

View on HN

You're right. I think having it spawn lots of subagents, read everything, formulate a big and detailed plan, only for it to be subtly wrong while requiring me to carefully review the result and the intermediate plans that produced it is quite tiring. I suppose things slip through.

If you understand these subtle pieces you perceive the AI to get wrong, you should include that in your prompt. Also, unit test and functional test coverage go a long way to ensure correct behavior.

I could also include the correct implementation for it to copy in the prompt, if you get what I'm trying to say. Some amount of laziness or vagueness in the prompt is an intended use case, it's surely the point of having the subagents do so much churning of tokens to research before writing the plan that I'm about to disregard. But sure, those are helpful tips.

I admire your perseverance, but in mid-2026, I think you’re wasting your breath. The engineers who are virulently anti-AI like this, without being able to engage honestly about the pros and cons, are being driven by their fear and insecurity.

How am I being virulently anti-AI? I've been a Claude Code max subscriber for many months and find it very helpful. It feels a little unfair to conclude that any criticism is just unfounded fear and insecurity..

Ostensibly, there may be a third party that benefits from the exchange, rather than the two exchanging ideas.

It is surprising to see how many are still in utter denial around here, though. Maybe we should all go back to punch cards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com