Do kids learn well when you only tell them what NOT to do? Of course not! You should be explaining how to do things correctly, and most importantly the WHY, as well as providing examples of both the "correct" and "incorrect" ways (also explaining why an example is incorrect).

https://xkcd.com/538/

The end-goal is to gain complete access to the system - the outcome (data theft or ransomware) is customers choice

I've had an ROG Zeph collecting dust for a couple years now, specifically for the reasons you described, which I now have a good reason to dig out and poke around in. Got my weekend sorted :)

    I'll preface this comment with: I am a recent startup owner (so only dev, which is important) and my entire codebase has been generated via Sonnet (mostly 3.7, now using 4.0). If you actually looked at the work I'm (personally) producing, I guess I'm more of a product-owner/project-manager as I'm really just overseeing the development.

    > I have yet to see an LLM-generated app not collapse under it’s own weight after enough iterations/prompts.

    There's a few crucial steps to make an LLM-generated app maintainable (by the LLM):

    - _have a very, very strong SWE background_; ideally as a "strong" Lead Dev, _this is critical_

    - your entire workflow NEEDS to be centered around LLM-development (or even model-specific):

      - use MCPs wherever possible and make sure they're specifically configured for your project

      - don't write "human" documentation; use rule + reusable prompt files

      - you MUST do this in a *very* granular but specialized way; keep rules/prompts very small (like you would when creating tickets)

      - make sure rules are conditionally applied (using globs); do not auto include anything except your "system rules"

      - use the LLM to generate said prompts and rules; this forces consistency across prompts, very important

      - follow a typical agile workflow (creating epics, tickets, backlogs etc)

      - TESTS TESTS AND MORE TESTS; add automated tools (like linters) EVERYWHERE you can

      - keep your code VERY modular so the LLM can keep a focused context, rules should provide all key context (like the broader architecture); the goal is for your LLM to only need to read or interact with files related to the strict 'current task' scope

      - iterating on code is almost always more difficult than writing it from scratch: provided your code is well architected, no single rewrite should be larger than a regular ticket (if the ticket is too large then it needs to be split up)

    This is off the top of my head so it's pretty broad/messy but I can expand on my points.

    LLM-coding requires a complete overhaul of your workflow so it is tailored specifically to an LLM, not a human, but this is also a massive learning curve (that take's a lot of time to figure out and optimize). Would I bother doing this if I were still working on a team? Probably not, I don't think it would've saved me much time in a "regular" codebase. As a single developer at a startup? This is the only way I've been able to get "other startup-y" work done while also progressing the codebase - the value of being able to do multiple things at a time, let the LLM and intermittently review the output while you get to work on other things.

    The biggest tip I can give: LLMs struggle at "coding like a human" and are much better at "bad-practice" workflows (e.g. throwing away large parts of code in favour of a total rewrite) - let the LLM lead the development process, with the rules/prompts as guardrails, and try stay out of it's way while it works (instead of saying "hey X thing didn't work, go fix that now") - hold its hand but let it experiment before jumping in.

Right now your comment reads like something off a conspiracy forum and has nothing to back it up - which is not something that warrants discussion (on HN).

I wouldn't, in my opinion:

Capitalism incentivizes selfishness at the detriment of others that are "playing the [capitalism] game" or anti-competitive practices. It also pushes people to hoard resources - think Tragedy of the Commons or anti-competitive practices in general. The incentive is to reduce the amount of resources available to competition while increasing your holdings, allowing you to repeat the loop but with higher chances of success.

Providing something others find useful seems like a lucky side effect that often isn't even true, there's a lot of industries who have no intention of providing something useful (like stock trading, short trading especially). Most companies are trying to reduce costs as much as possible, reducing the usefulness of their product/service to the lowest point that people will still pay for.

But I agree with your other points - just because capitalism breeds selfishness it doesn't mean all parties are going to the extremes.

They are amazing birds, very deserving of the name "Clown of the Mountains".

Oh I wish that were true for my experiences - much more commonly it's a project manager that doesn't understand the value of tests....

Ehhhh? Yes there are examples of that, as there are for any arbitrary group of humans you could select, but [anecdotally] I've noticed the opposite... it's not uncommon to find a passionate developer that's only interested in the challenge/problem solving aspect - it's a lot less common for say.. real estate agents.

I don't really get the point you're making beyond "people be greedy sometimes" (which I do agree with, don't get me wrong).

  - `server-sequential-thinking` (MVP)
  - `memory` (2nd MVP, needs custom rules for config)
  - `context7`
  - `filesystem`
  - `fetch`
  - `postgres`
  - `git`
  - `time`

```

# Ticket Management Guidelines

This document outlines the standardized approach to ticket management in the project. All team members should follow these guidelines when creating, updating, or completing tickets.

## Ticket Organization

Tickets are organized by status and area in the following structure:

TICKETS/ COMPLETED/ - Finished tickets BACKEND/ - Backend-related tickets FRONTEND/ - Frontend-related tickets IN_PROGRESS/ - Tickets currently being worked on BACKEND/ FRONTEND/ BACKLOG/ - Tickets planned but not yet started BACKEND/ FRONTEND/

## Ticket Status Indicators

All tickets must use consistent status indicators:

- *BACKLOG* - Planned but not yet started - *IN_PROGRESS* - Currently being implemented - *COMPLETED* - Implementation is finished - *ABANDONED* - Work was stopped and will not continue

## Required Ticket Files

Each ticket directory must contain these files:

1. *Main Ticket File* (TICKET_.md): - Problem statement and background - Detailed analysis - Implementation plan - Acceptance criteria

2. *Implementation Plan* (IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md): - Detailed breakdown of tasks - Timeline estimates - Success metrics

3. *Implementation Progress* (IMPLEMENTATION_PROGRESS.md): - Status updates - Issues encountered - Decisions made

4. *Design Documentation* (DESIGN_RECOMMENDATIONS.md), when relevant: - Architecture recommendations - Code patterns and examples - Error handling strategies

5. *API Documentation* (API_DOCUMENTATION.md), when applicable: - Interface definitions - Usage examples - Configuration options

## Ticket Workflow Rules

### Creating Tickets

1. Create tickets in the appropriate BACKLOG directory 2. Use standard templates from .templates/ticket_template.md 3. Set status to *Status: BACKLOG* 4. Update the TICKET_INDEX.md file

### Updating Tickets

1. Move tickets to the appropriate status directory when status changes 2. Update the status indicator in the main ticket file 3. Update the "Last Updated" date when making significant changes 4. Document progress in IMPLEMENTATION_PROGRESS.md 5. Check off completed tasks in IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md

### Completing Tickets

1. Ensure all acceptance criteria are met 2. Move the ticket to the COMPLETED directory 3. Set status to *Status: COMPLETED* 4. Update the TICKET_INDEX.md file 5. Create a completion summary in the main ticket file

### Abandoning Tickets

1. Document reasons for abandonment 2. Move to COMPLETED/ABANDONED directory 3. Set status to *Status: ABANDONED* 4. Update the TICKET_INDEX.md file

## Ticket Linking

When referencing other tickets, use relative links with appropriate paths:

markdown @TICKET_NAME

Ensure all links are updated when tickets change status.

## Ticket Cleanup and Streamlining

### When to Streamline Tickets

Tickets should be streamlined and cleaned up at major transition points to maintain focus on remaining work:

1. *Major Phase Transitions* - When moving between phases (e.g., from implementation to testing) 2. *Milestone Achievements* - After completing significant portions of work (e.g., 80%+ complete) 3. *Infrastructure Readiness* - When moving from setup/building to operational phases 4. *Team Handoffs* - When different team members will be taking over the work

### What to Streamline

*Replace Historical Implementation Details With:* - Brief completed tasks checklist ( high-level achievements) - Current status summary - Forward-focused remaining work

*Remove or Simplify:* - Detailed session-by-session progress logs - Extensive implementation decision histories - Verbose research findings documentation - Historical status updates and coordination notes

### Why Streamline Tickets

1. *Git History Preservation* - All detailed progress, decisions, and implementation details are preserved in git commits 2. *Clarity for Future Work* - Makes it easier to quickly understand "what needs to be done next" 3. *Team Efficiency* - Anyone picking up the work can immediately see current state and next steps 4. *Maintainability* - Shorter, focused tickets are easier to read, understand, and keep updated

### How to Streamline

1. *Archive Detailed Progress* - Historical implementation details are preserved in git history 2. *Create Completion Summary* - Replace detailed progress with a brief "What's Complete" checklist 3. *Focus on Remaining Work* - Make current and future phases the primary content 4. *Update Status Sections* - Keep status concise and action-oriented 5. *Preserve Essential Context* - Keep architectural decisions, constraints, and key requirements

*Goal*: Transform tickets from "implementation logs" into "actionable work plans" while preserving essential context.

## Maintenance Requirements

1. Keep the TICKET_INDEX.md file up to date 2. Update "Last Updated" dates when making significant changes 3. Ensure all ticket files follow the standardized format 4. Include links between related tickets in both directions

## Complete Documentation

For detailed instructions on working with tickets, refer to:

- @Ticket Workflow Guide - @Ticket Index - @Tickets README

```

Then don't give it your API keys? Surely there's better ways to solve this (like an MCP API gateway)?

[I agree with you]

I'll preface this comment with: I am a recent startup owner (so only dev, which is important) and my entire codebase has been generated via Sonnet (mostly 3.7, now using 4.0). If you actually looked at the work I'm (personally) producing, I guess I'm more of a product-owner/project-manager as I'm really just overseeing the development.

> I have yet to see an LLM-generated app not collapse under it’s own weight after enough iterations/prompts.

There's a few crucial steps to make an LLM-generated app maintainable (by the LLM):

- _have a very, very strong SWE background_; ideally as a "strong" Lead Dev, _this is critical_

- your entire workflow NEEDS to be centered around LLM-development (or even model-specific):

  - use MCPs wherever possible and make sure they're specifically configured for your project

  - don't write "human" documentation; use rule + reusable prompt files

  - you MUST do this in a *very* granular but specialized way; keep rules/prompts very small (like you would when creating tickets)

  - make sure rules are conditionally applied (using globs); do not auto include anything except your "system rules"

  - use the LLM to generate said prompts and rules; this forces consistency across prompts, very important

  - follow a typical agile workflow (creating epics, tickets, backlogs etc)

  - TESTS TESTS AND MORE TESTS; add automated tools (like linters) EVERYWHERE you can

  - keep your code VERY modular so the LLM can keep a focused context, rules should provide all key context (like the broader architecture); the goal is for your LLM to only need to read or interact with files related to the strict 'current task' scope

  - iterating on code is almost always more difficult than writing it from scratch: provided your code is well architected, no single rewrite should be larger than a regular ticket (if the ticket is too large then it needs to be split up)

LLM-coding requires a complete overhaul of your workflow so it is tailored specifically to an LLM, not a human, but this is also a massive learning curve (that take's a lot of time to figure out and optimize). Would I bother doing this if I were still working on a team? Probably not, I don't think it would've saved me much time in a "regular" codebase. As a single developer at a startup? This is the only way I've been able to get "other startup-y" work done while also progressing the codebase - the value of being able to do multiple things at a time, let the LLM and intermittently review the output while you get to work on other things.

The biggest tip I can give: LLMs struggle at "coding like a human" and are much better at "bad-practice" workflows (e.g. throwing away large parts of code in favour of a total rewrite) - let the LLM lead the development process, with the rules/prompts as guardrails, and try stay out of it's way while it works (instead of saying "hey X thing didn't work, go fix that now") - hold its hand but let it experiment before jumping in.