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.
How do you know when an AI coding agent is actually done?
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.
@addyosmani: Verification is one of the most important things for getting great results out of your agent. Clearly define "done" bef…
Addy Osmani emphasizes that verification is crucial for getting good results from AI coding agents: clearly define "done" before review, give the agent executable checks (bash commands, tests, browser tests) to pass, and only ship when nothing blocks merge.
When an AI agent says “done” how do you know it actually happened? [P]
The article explores an early concept called agentuptime, which addresses verifying AI agent actions by independently checking outcomes to ensure that an agent's completion claim matches the actual state of external systems.
What checks would make you trust an AI agent to complete a task unsupervised?
The article discusses the necessary checks and evidence to trust AI agents for unsupervised task completion, such as source citations, action previews, limits, step records, and examples of error detection.