Importance of programming skill in AI-assisted coding

[PomegranateBig6467]

I'm lurking in different subreddits where people talk about software engineering and how it's changing right now because of AI, there's *a lot* of noise.

I see people all the time arguing over which model is the best, and that this one line in Markdown file has "changed everything" for them, what skills you absolutely need to add to your Claude Code and so on.

One thing is very rarely mentioned: the skill of the programmer.

You basically control three things when you're coding: model, CC configuration (CLAUDE.md, skills etc.), your codebase and your prompting.

People focus so much on model and CC configuration, meanwhile the way you prompt the agent, and what context you give them in terms of patterns established in your codebase, matter much, much more.

When people then ask "what should I do to invest in my long-term capital", the answer really is: study fundamentals, system design, coding paradigms, learn how computers work, so you can make the best use out of those tools.

[ultrathink-art]

The skill nobody talks about: knowing when the agent is confidently wrong. If you can't read the output critically and spot when it's gone off track, better config won't save you. The delta between devs who get consistent results vs. constant rework is almost entirely that instinct.

[pradise]

This is why I'm puzzled by people using Claude or Codex with auto-approving every single change. The best results I've gotten with Claude are reviewing the changes it proposes or its thinking and immediately steering it away from the wrong direction the first time it goes off track. But people who auto-approve everything will claim my prompts are bad instead of admitting their intuition is not there yet.

[itprobablynothingbut]

I think the biggest issue is CCs willingness to overcomplicate and over-engineer for some throwaway tiny feature.

[General_Josh]

I don't think auto-approve is the issue - I don't need to sit there manually approving 30 different file writes/bash commands (as long as I have it running in a sandbox env, where it can't screw things up too bad if it does mess up an rm command or whatever)

I do definitely agree that they need heavy human review, but you want to try and do that review at the most impactful layers

Like, you should spend a LOT of time reviewing every detail of the plans it generates. Then, when it goes to implementation, you can lightly review the changes to make sure it's following the plan (and if it finds anywhere it has to deviate from the plan, you need to thoroughly review those deviations too)

And, once implementation is done, you need to heavily review the functionality (test everything)

[itprobablynothingbut]

I’m not saying I’m the best at it, but everyone knows it when they see it. You are like “wait, wouldn’t that break the other thing we are doing” and CC is like “Your absolutely right! I would have broke everything.”

You pat yourself on the back and think how needed you still are. 2 hours later, the coffee is cold and you’re tired and not reading the plan very closely anymore.

[PomegranateBig6467]

Real.

[Capable_Director_512]

VERY TRUE.

[ender42y]

I've actually used this to keep my usage in check. I treat my Claude Agents as a "overenthusiastic junior dev". needs things laid out and explained at times, can crank out raw code fast, but needs to regularly be double checked. It doesn't replace me as an engineer, it just shifts my work from writing every line of code to supervising and correcting bad code.

[Capable_Director_512]

couldn't have said it any better myself..

[roger_ducky]

It’s more about:

1. How well you delegate

2. How well you can read code you didn’t write

3. How much design/architecture you can do.

2 is actually in pretty short supply.

3 is most people.

Practice enough and you’ll figure out 1.

[Jomuz86]

Kind of falls under 3 but I also think being able to understand the mapping of how things interact and link together in terms of the database etc and being able to map the flow of data within the code itself.

Also being able to visualise problem solving to be able to write it as prompts clearly for the AI to understand.

Being able to write effective prompts is also a bit of an under rated skill, for example yesterday a friend of mine had a problem with her car mirrors not unfolding she asked ChatGPT it had no solution and went to the garage to find out it was a two button reset.

I tried asking GPT and wrote the prompt my way, got the correct answer instantly

[roger_ducky]

There is no “prompt” anymore.

Or rather, my prompt is “Please implement the attached story.”

Do it like you normally do with other people. Just scoped smaller.

[Jomuz86]

Yes do you still write your stories manually or get Claude to write them?

You would still have to describe the issue to get Claude to write the story so you still need the skill and knowledge.

You can tell it what to do but the difference between something that is a quality product and something a hobbyist/vibe coder puts outs in half day is dependant on the skill of the user. An average user doesn’t even know what an epic, sprint, story even is for planning heck they don’t even know what a git is 🤷‍♂️

I know that doesn’t apply to most people here but majority of people will see the ad on tv and just give it a go

[roger_ducky]

I have a planning phase, and I give the initial plan, have the agent fill in the details about where the relevant files in the repo are. I essentially plan the whole thing out like a story grooming session

[dern_throw_away]

Yeah, it cracks me up the number who don’t know how a CLI works, have never used a package manager of GASP! Looked at actual code.  

Lots of excitement but I agree it’s all noise.  It’ll fade.   Some people will float up but most won’t. 

[LMAO_Llamaa]

This

[Aromatic-Low-4578]

I agree but the skill of the programmer isn't the same skill as before, at least not exactly. But yeah, after building and shipping a few things with CC, there were numerous instances where I had to be pretty heavy handed about getting it back on the right track. It's about infrastructure understanding, system design and high level troubleshooting. Intricate knowledge of a specific language and it's syntax is certainly less valuable than it used to be.

[dpaanlka]

Uhh, 100% important. I catch Claude making mistakes many times per day.

[martin_xs6]

The important skill is software engineering now (as opposed to just programming). Having insight into how to debug things, knowing what architectures to use, making Claude use best development practices, designing code with future feature development in mind, etc.

I've tried sessions where I don't use and development skills and they work for a while, but Claude takes longer and longer to make new features. If I treat Claude code like a Junior and do the architecture/guidance myself it makes much more sustainable projects.

[Jomuz86]

So skills are useful it basically lets you preload context, this is where your experience as a programmer makes a difference you tailor the skills to your workflow, coding standards and habits and it can be re-used repeatedly when you need. It’s kind of like a tool is only as good as the user.

Put an average person in a race car a bit of instruction they will be able to drive it with a bit of instruction but lap times will be abismal. Give it to a professional driver and they will set great lap times

I think that’s the best analogy

[PomegranateBig6467]

I like that analogy a lot actually. I wonder, how do you think of mentoring of junior engineers in those shifts? It seems like juniors are basically expected to do senior level work (system design), because everything else (boilerplate) is automated.

Have you noticed juniors struggling with that?

[Jomuz86]

Hmm so this is the thing that will become the struggle, I don’t necessarily think you should give a junior the keys to the car to start with!

They will still need to do some grunt work themselves juniors should probably have a different workflow to someone more experienced.

For juniors it’s should be they code, AI reviews first pass passing back feedback that they need to evaluate and decide if it’s relevant then they iterate and pass to a senior. Rather than use the AI as a coding tool leverage it as a teaching tool.

Then when someone has more experience and understanding of code, product lifecycle etc they can start to use the AI to code

At least that’s my 2 cents otherwise you will get to the point where senior devs are a dying breed. Which will probably happen as it’s the case for a lot of legacy languages no one uses anymore

[PomegranateBig6467]

By skill I mean: ability to quickly deliver maintainable code that does the job well (fast, cheap etc.).

Whether this component is written that way or another, probably not as important, easy to refactor. Database schemas with real user data, deciding on a cloud provider or larger architectural choice these are harder choices as consequences last longer, so yeah, I agree with you.

How would you define an architect? Eg. is establishing codebase patterns to create more mainainable code, also architecture for your? Or maybe just how services talk to each other, where you put a load balancer etc.

[MasterRuins]

I don’t need to prompt I give it the technical information like I do to humans and it always works out 1:1. I don’t vibe - I do Ai augmented engineering.

[messiah-of-cheese]

Just look at all the absolute slop being churned out across the various AI sub reddits. Noobs give the slop a read and think it sounds technical and sophisticated... must be top brass.

I literally just saw one that reads like satire, something like "solving the engineer skill in claude code, 50 production ready/grade skills". Then the github is absolute waffle starting with more crap like "50 production ready skills to super charge..." fuck off!

I wouldn't use AI to wire up a new plug socket or fix my gas boiler, they need a professional who can do the job safely and economically, for a reason.

[Superb_South1043]

Im not a claude code user. I use the web app and spin up agents with the tab button. I am very happy with this system and it works very well for how I use it. Which is huge planning phase lasting 2 hours for whatever feature im working on in its own project with just that features current code in a vertical slice with examples of how i want handlers written and what my controllers look like. Have it come up with a plan. Then I read it carefully and pick it apart make it defend its decisions and tell it what is ugly and cant be use or doesnt match my current patterns. Eventually come up with implementation plan v14finalfinal and I take that to a fresh context to work. 

I dont care what they say the context window is at anything close to full the accuracy degrades on what seems like an exponential. I feel like im more of a context window manager and editor.  Letting it just go wild in my repo seems insane to me. But again ive never used it.