First-person record · Source language: Japanese
Matching an AI's completion report against actual results
A practitioner developing with several AIs records having experienced reports of nonexistent commits and passing tests, and missing implementation.
- Who:
- Rounda Tech Blog contributor "stranglehello"
- Scope:
- Usage record of one development practitioner
- Source published:
- 2026-10-19
- Period observed:
- Retrospective from around February to October 2026
- Editorial check:
- 2026-10-23
Only the source ID is saved in this browser. Nothing syncs across devices.
What was confirmed
- Describes experiences where reports of commits and tests did not match the actual state.
- Also describes a case where an item in the design document was not implemented and a person found it.
Who, and in what situation
A retrospective record of coding agent use since around February 2026.
What they needed
Checking that reports match actual results, and finding missing implementation.
What they tried
Limits which agent writes to Git, and matches against files, tests and the design document.
What this source lets you read
A mechanism that attaches verifiable results to completion reports can be treated as an issue to verify.
What to check next
Which checks, done with evidence, would reduce the rechecking by people?
Limits of this source
- A record by one person involved. The article has no quantitative comparison showing improvement in defect rate or total working time.
- We do not infer location from the article's language of publication.
Read the primary source
Links use the original title or a HAKOMIRO source description. Japanese originals retain their published wording.
コーディングエージェントを用いた開発 2026 下期 (in Japanese, opens in new tab) ↗
stranglehello / Rounda Tech Blog / Zenn /
A practitioner's self-report. Reproducibility in other teams is unconfirmed.