[jackschultz]

Sure, but the end of this post [0] is where I'm at. I don't feel the need or want to write the code when I can spend my time doing the other parts that are much more interesting and valuable.

> Emil concluded his article like this:

> JustHTML is about 3,000 lines of Python with 8,500+ tests passing. I couldn’t have written it this quickly without the agent. > But “quickly” doesn’t mean “without thinking.” I spent a lot of time reviewing code, making design decisions, and steering the agent in the right direction. The agent did the typing; I did the thinking. > That’s probably the right division of labor.

>I couldn’t agree more. Coding agents replace the part of my job that involves typing the code into a computer. I find what’s left to be a much more valuable use of my time.

[0] https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/14/justhtml/

[culopatin]

But are those tests relevant? I tried using LLMs to write tests at work and whenever I review them I end up asking it “Ok great, passes the test, but is the test relevant? Does it test anything useful?” And I get a “Oh yeah, you’re right, this test is pointless”

[manmal]

Keep track of test coverage and ask it to delete tests without lowering coverage by more than let’s say 0.01 percent points. If you have a script that gives it only the test coverage, and a file with all tests including line number ranges, it is more or less a dumb task it can work on for hours, without actually reading the files (which would fill context too quickly).

[tlarkworthy]

We fixed this at work by instructing it to maximize coverage with minimal tests, which is closer to our coding style.

[elbear]

Those tests were written by people. That's why they were confident that what the LLM implemented was correct.

[wahnfrieden]

Yes

Skill issue... And perhaps the wrong model + harness