[keeran]

This was pretty much my first experience with LLM code generation when these things first came out.

It's still a present issue whenever I go light on prompt details and I _always_ get caught out by it and it _always_ infuriates me.

I'm sure there are endless discussions on front running overconfident false positives and being better at prompting and seeding a project context, but 1-2 years into this world is like 20 in regular space, and it shouldn't be happening any more.

[op00to]

Often times I come up with a prompt, then stick the prompt in an LLM to enhance / identify what I’ve left out, then finally actually execute the prompt.

[exhaze]

Cite things from ID based specs. You’re facing a skill issue. The reason most people don’t see it as such is because an LLM doesn’t just “fail to run” here. If this was code you wrote in a compiled language, would you post and say the language infuriates you because it won’t compile your syntax errors? As this kind of dev style becomes prevalent and output expectation adjust, work performance review won’t care that you’re mad. So my advice is:

1. Treat it like regular software dev where you define tasks with ID prefixes for everything, acceptance criteria, exceptions. Ask LLM to reference them in code right before impl code

2. “Debug” by asking the LLM to self reflect on its decision making process that caused the issue - this can give you useful heuristics o use later to further reduce the issues you mentioned.

“It” happening is a result of your lack of time investment into systematically addressing this.

_You_ should have learned this by now. Complain less, learn more.