AI lowers the barrier to coding, allowing non-technical people to submit pull requests. Instead of rejecting imperfect code, view these contributions as high-fidelity prompts that clearly articulate the desired feature or fix, which can then be refined by a senior developer.
Related Insights
For designers who code but aren't senior engineers, submitting pull requests can be daunting. Using an integrated AI code review agent provides an extra layer of validation. It catches potential issues and suggests improvements, boosting confidence before the code undergoes human review.
AI development tools can be "resistant," ignoring change requests. A powerful technique is to prompt the AI to consider multiple options and ask for your choice before building. This prevents it from making incorrect unilateral decisions, such as applying a navigation change to the entire site by mistake.
Atlassian found users struggled with prompting, using vague language like 'change logo to JIRA' which caused the AI to pull old assets. They embedded pre-written, copyable commands into their prototyping templates. This guides users to interact with the underlying code correctly, reducing hallucinations and boosting confidence.
Go beyond static AI code analysis. After an AI like Codex automatically flags a high-confidence issue in a GitHub pull request, developers can reply directly in a comment, "Hey, Codex, can you fix it?" The agent will then attempt to fix the issue it found.
Contrary to the belief that AI levels the playing field, senior engineers extract more value from it. They leverage their experience to guide the AI, critically review its output as they would a junior hire's code, and correct its mistakes. This allows them to accelerate their workflow without blindly shipping low-quality code.
Technical executives who stopped coding due to time constraints and the cognitive overhead of modern frameworks are now actively contributing to their codebases again. AI agents handle the boilerplate and syntax, allowing them to focus on logic and product features, often working asynchronously between meetings.
Software development platforms like Linear are evolving to empower non-technical team members. By integrating with AI agents like GitHub Copilot, designers can now directly instruct an agent to make small code fixes, preview the results, and resolve issues without needing to assign the task to an engineer, thus blurring the lines between roles.
As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.
It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.
Non-technical creators using AI coding tools often fail due to unrealistic expectations of instant success. The key is a mindset shift: understanding that building quality software is an iterative process of prompting, testing, and debugging, not a one-shot command that works in five prompts.
