Generative AI coding tools and agents do not work for me

> It takes me at least the same amount of time to review code not written by me than it would take me to write the code myself, if not more.

As someone who uses Claude Code heavily, this is spot on.

LLMs are great, but I find the more I cede control to them, the longer it takes to actually ship the code.

I’ve found that the main benefit for me so far is the reduction of RSI symptoms, whereas the actual time savings are mostly over exaggerated (even if it feels faster in the moment).

Do you have to review the code? I’ll be honest that, like the OP theorizes, I often just spot review it. But I also get it to write specs (often very good, in terms of the ones I’ve dug into), and I always carefully review and test the results. Because there is also plenty of non-AI code in my projects I didn’t review at all, namely, the myriad open source libraries I’ve installed.

It depends on what you're doing. If it's a simple task, or you're making something that won't grow into something larger, eyeballing the code and testing it is usually perfect. These types of tasks feel great with Claude Code.

If you're trying to build something larger, it's not good enough. Even with careful planning and spec building, Claude Code will still paint you into a corner when it comes to architecture. In my experience, it requires a lot of guidance to write code that can be built upon later.

The difference between the AI code and the open source libraries in this case is that you don't expect to be responsible for the third-party code later. Whether you or Claude ends up working on your code later, you'll need it to be in good shape. So, it's important to give Claude good guidance to build something that can be worked on later.