raflueder · HackerTrans

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

Gave it a fair shot at multiple attempts of taking an existing design and making small adjustments to it. Useful perhaps for starting something from scratch and for someone with zero design background. Most likely will just end up being yet another tool that promises visual design magic and ends up not really delivering it. It's a pass. :)

raflueder

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

Because the code generated is only as good as the initial description of what you want. It's not too different from "standard" coding where you have a first go at solving it and then iterate and polish as you go along.

I've had multiple situations where things "just worked" and at other times you just have to steer it in the right direction a few times, having another agent doing the review works really well (with the right guardrails), it's like having someone with no other intent or bias review your code.

Unless you're talking about "vibe coding" in which case "correct" doesn't really matter as you're not even looking at what the output is, just let it go back/forth until something that works comes out, I haven't had much success or even enjoyed it as much working this way, took me a couple of months to find the sweet spot (my sweetspot, I think it'll be different for everyone).

raflueder

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

Or, just spin up your own review workflow, I've been doing this for the past couple of months after experimenting with Greptile and it works pretty well, example setup below:

https://gist.github.com/rlueder/a3e7b1eb40d90c29f587a4a8cb7c...

An average of $0.04/review (200+ PRs with two rounds each approx.) total of $19.50 using Opus 4.6 over February.

It fills in a gap of working on a solo project and not having another set of eyes to look at changes.

raflueder

8 bulan yang laludiscuss

I had a similar experience a couple of months ago where I decided to give it a go and "vibe code" a small TUI to get a feel for the workflow.

I used Claude Code and while the end result works (kinda) I noticed I was less satisfied with the process and, more importantly, I now had to review "someone else's" code instead of writing it myself, I had no idea of the internal workings of the application and it felt like starting at day one on a new codebase. It shifted my way of working from thinking/writing into reviewing/giving feedback which for me personally is way less mentally stimulating and rewarding.

There were def. some "a-ha" moments where CC came up with certain suggestions I wouldn't have thought of myself but those were only a small fraction of the total output and there's def. a dopamine hit from seeing all that code being spit out so fast.

Used as a prototyping tool to quickly test an idea seems to be a good use case but there should be better tooling around taking that prototype, splitting it into manageable parts, sharing the reasoning behind it so I can then rework it so I have the necessary understanding to move it forward.

For now I've decided to stick to code completion, writing of unit tests, commit messages, refactoring short snippets, CHANGELOG updates, it does fairly well on all of those small very focused tasks and the saved time on those end up being net positive.

raflueder

10 bulan yang laludiscuss

I've been using with a subscription, both API and subs work.

comments