Are coding agents exposing how bad our specs actually are?

I’m starting to think a lot of coding agent failures are not just model failures. They are spec failures. A human developer can often fill in missing context from meetings, Slack history, product intuition, or just knowing how the team works. A coding agent does not really have that. If the ticket is vague, the agent still produces something. That is the weird part. It does not stop and say “this is underspecified.” It often guesses, writes code, and makes the output look confident. So maybe the next skill is not just “prompt engineering.” Maybe it is writing better work packets: what problem are we solving? what should not change? what files or areas are in scope? what edge cases matter? what does done actually mean? what should the agent ask before touching code? For people using coding agents seriously: Have agents made you write better specs/tickets? Or do you still mostly give them loose instructions and fix the output after?