How do you know when an AI coding agent is actually done?
Summary
The author built OpenPitStop, an open-source tool that independently checks and verifies the work of AI coding agents, demonstrated on a broken application, and invites discussion on how to trust AI changes.
Similar Articles
Is there any tool that clearly checks whether an AI coding agent stayed inside the task I gave it?
The author describes the problem of AI coding agents making unauthorized changes outside their approved task and introduces their local tool Ripple, which detects such boundary violations and suggests actions like continue, repair, or human review.
AI can build apps now, but who checks if it built the right thing?
A discussion on the next bottleneck for AI coding agents: verifying that AI-generated applications are actually correct, and who should be responsible for checking the output.
[Discussion] Do AI coding agents say “done” too early for you too?
Discussion about AI coding agents claiming completion prematurely, skipping checks, and making messy changes. The author is testing a system with planning and review gates to improve AI-coding workflows.
Where should trust checks happen for AI coding agents?
The author explores the critical question of where trust checks should be placed in AI coding agent workflows—before coding, during coding, before PR, or during review—and invites developers to share where trust broke in their actual use of tools like Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor.
AI coding agent output verification in 2026: read the diff, vibe check it, merge
A reflection on current practices for verifying AI coding agent output, noting that developers often skim diffs and merge without fully auditing the agent's session activity, raising concerns about code review culture in the age of AI.