<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: germanptr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=germanptr</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:35:06 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=germanptr" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by germanptr in "Automating myself out of development"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I get this question a lot, and I found it hard to answer briefly, so I ended up writing a longer post about how I work:<p><a href="https://www.trigosec.com/insights/mob-programming-for-one/" rel="nofollow">https://www.trigosec.com/insights/mob-programming-for-one/</a><p>The short version is that I don’t let AI agents work unsupervised on my code. I treat them like participants in a mob programming session instead of autonomous developers. Different agents get different roles (implementer, reviewer, architect, security reviewer, etc.), and I stay involved throughout the process.<p>I also agree with your point about architecture. Generating isolated components is relatively easy; preserving and evolving the architectural boundaries across a larger codebase is much harder.<p>We’re still missing a good way to express and measure architectural quality. Until then, architecture heavy work requires much closer supervision than implementation heavy work</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:31:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48514908</link><dc:creator>germanptr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48514908</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48514908</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by germanptr in "Using AI to write better code more slowly"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I follow a similar approach and use multiple LLMs per task. The quality improvement is surprisingly large.<p>Lately I’ve been experimenting with adding an explicit reward function so the models optimize for measurable output quality.<p>This creates a generate, critique, revise loop where candidate answers compete for a higher score. It feels promising because it reduces the amount of handholding for every task. It is also more fun because part of the review process is embedded in the scoring function, which simplifies the review effort.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:11 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48276766</link><dc:creator>germanptr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48276766</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48276766</guid></item></channel></rss>