I was ready to agree with a pragmatic use of LLM’s until he mentioned that he is working in an agentic style and is scared to touch the code manually because it will confuse Claude. 🤦🏻‍♂️

I’m all for using the AI as a pair programmer but unleashing it on a gigantic Python codebase is a comically foolish move, IMO. Python is not safe for this method of working. In fact, I’d call anything short of Unison (which hashes the entire AST) or something tailor-made for LLM’s like aver a fool’s errand. In my experience, the LLM needs a strict set of guardrails (like a static type system or similar) to get feedback from lest it turn things to spaghetti.

because it will confuse Claude. 🤦🏻‍♂️

You’re kidding? Or did he really wrote that?

Do you still review and rewrite the code that Claude produces before it lands in Lutris?

Mathieu: I do review the code but I usually don’t rewrite something Claude is actively working on. If you don’t tell Claude about any changes you’ve made, there’s a big chance it will revert those and switch back to its original implementation! Instead, I will prompt Claude for the fixes I want made until I’m happy with the result.

I read it as “while Claude is actively working on this particular file, I do not touch that file”.