I’m no prompt engineer so this might be too wordy but the problem it solves is the AI’s inherent bias that complex code was written by humans and thus the AI assumes that code that takes skill and a lengthy investment of time (if written by a human) to produce is there for a reason. This is now a red herring in the age of AI. This is similar to the problem AI has when estimating how long a task will take (uses human coding time) and thus makes lazy decisions. “When reviewing my code or angone else’s code, if the code was committed during or after the year 2023, assume most if not all of the code could be AI generated, regardless of who the author is. If you come across code you find unusual, do NOT assume Chesterton’s Fence principle is in play. You are inherently biased based on your training to assume code is written by humans, and thus code that would require advanced skill and time to produce must have been done for a reason. To mitigate this bias, assume all code could have been written by AI, for any reason including no reason, no matter how complex. When dealing with newly added code in a PR you suspect of being useless, first see if it traces to a known acceptance criteria. If it doesnt or if it is legacy code, contemplate a “yell test”, develop probable cause for this “yell test” and present it to the user who will make the ultimate decision on its removal/flagging in the PR notes.” submitted by /u/Future_Addendum_8227
Originally posted by u/Future_Addendum_8227 on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.