To ensure comprehension of AI-generated code, developer Terry Lynn created a "rubber duck" rule in his AI tool. This prompts the AI to explain code sections and even create pop quizzes about specific functions. This turns the development process into an active learning tool, ensuring he deeply understands the code he's shipping.
Human developers may prefer longer files, but AI coding assistants process code in smaller chunks. App developer Terry Lynn intentionally keeps his files small (under 400 lines) to reduce the AI's context window usage, prevent it from getting lost, and improve the speed and accuracy of its code generation.
As AI generates more code than humans can review, the validation bottleneck emerges. The solution is providing agents with dedicated, sandboxed environments to run tests and verify functionality before a human sees the code, shifting review from process to outcome.
Vercel designer Pranati Perry advises viewing AI models as interns. This mindset shifts the focus from blindly accepting output to actively guiding the AI and reviewing its work. This collaborative approach helps designers build deeper technical understanding rather than just shipping code they don't comprehend.
Instead of codebases becoming harder to manage over time, use an AI agent to create a "compounding engineering" system. Codify learnings from each feature build—successful plans, bug fixes, tests—back into the agent's prompts and tools, making future development faster and easier.
Instead of asking an AI to directly build something, the more effective approach is to instruct it on *how* to solve the problem: gather references, identify best-in-class libraries, and create a framework before implementation. This means working one level of abstraction higher than the code itself.
Many AI tools expose the model's reasoning before generating an answer. Reading this internal monologue is a powerful debugging technique. It reveals how the AI is interpreting your instructions, allowing you to quickly identify misunderstandings and improve the clarity of your prompts for better results.
Instead of fighting for perfect code upfront, accept that AI assistants can generate verbose code. Build a dedicated "refactoring" phase into your process, using AI with specific rules to clean up and restructure the initial output. This allows you to actively manage technical debt created by AI-powered speed.
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.
For complex, one-time tasks like a code migration, don't just ask AI to write a script. Instead, have it build a disposable tool—a "jig" or "command center”—that visualizes the process and guides you through each step. This provides more control and understanding than a black-box script.
To prevent AI coding assistants from hallucinating, developer Terry Lynn uses a two-step process. First, an AI generates a Product Requirements Document (PRD). Then, a separate AI "reviewer" rates the PRD's clarity out of 10, identifying gaps before any code is written, ensuring a higher rate of successful execution.