The hitching is compounded for me because I tend to run the agents in squads: the agent I talk to operates a strict no-coding 'producer' mode, it tasks a sub-agent to do the research or coding, then the results go via a file to a critic or review agent; keeps the producer context very minimal and lean. Not convinced it's as necessary as just starting new contexts frequently with Fable etc.
My general rule is that I won't commit code a human hasn't seen/reviewed to production codebases, and I know I won't maintain that rule if I have to read all the slop that gets generated first time round without an AI reviewer pass.
So far my producer skill has survived 4.6 thru fable in succeeding to treat the review/critic output skeptically, as a likely yes-man or team player.
The key is to remember that, as of Fable, the size of the training corpus segment representing people responding to AI-generated content is still relatively tiny. Telling Sonnet 4.6 "this is code an agent produced" has a near decorative effect with no apparent significance, Sonnet 4.8 shows some misgivings, and when I experimented with Fable it seemed to do well at anticipating the kind of slop 4.6 would throw you.
Interestingly, to me, telling Fable that code a previous Fable agent wrote was AI generated seemed to raise some kind of "I'm being benchmarked" flag; expanding the reasoning finds it being evasive and mistrusting; look past the null derefence because this must be a trick question type thing.