What evidence should AI coding agents leave before saying “done”?
Summary
Discusses the need for AI coding agents to provide evidence of their work before marking tasks as complete, exploring verification strategies and best practices.
Similar Articles
[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.
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.
Giving an AI coding agent a deterministic "architecture linter" so it stops faking "done"
The article describes giving an AI coding agent a deterministic architecture linter that checks Event Storming diagrams for mechanical gaps and open questions, ensuring the agent doesn't fake completion.
What mechanisms are you using to distinguish "agent busy" from "task completed"?
This article discusses an anti-pattern in AI agent systems where agents appear busy but fail to complete tasks. The author suggests separating responsibilities and requiring proof of completion as a solution.
Your coding agent says "done." It never actually checked if the thing works in a browser.
A critique of AI coding agents that claim tasks are complete without verifying functionality in a real browser environment.