I was dogfooding a small tool I’m building around reviewing AI-generated code changes. The task was intentionally tiny: fix a Next.js build error caused by one missing import. The agent fixed that, ran the build, then found more missing modules. Instead of stopping and reporting that the original scope was too small, it kept going, changed dashboard wiring, added backend support files, and got the build passing. At first glance that sounds useful. But it was actually the failure. The original task was not “make the build green no matter what.” It was “fix this specific import error.” If the next failure had been in auth, payments, config, or infra, the agent would have had the same instinct: keep fixing until the command passes. So I’m starting to think the important control is not just “did tests pass?” or “summarize the diff.” It is: did the agent stay inside the approved assignment, and did it stop when the real fix required more scope? For people using coding agents in real repos: when an agent discovers an adjacent bug while working, do you want it to keep going, or stop and ask for explicit approval before touching more files? submitted by /u/Few-Ad-1358
Originally posted by u/Few-Ad-1358 on r/ClaudeCode