Trending idea! On the same subject, but aimed at compatibility with TypeScript, I just discovered Code Contracts.

https://code-contracts.cc/

I would love to follow this advice, expect there is no proof that it leads to better results. Maybe it’s only better on Anthropic codebases (e.g., Bun). Or maybe it’s only marginally better but substantially more expensive.

Other comments in this thread show that your mileage may vary. But we spend so much money on Claude Code and give it so many responsibilities that we deserve at least some undeniable proof that it’s bringing value.

Where is the evidence that this new type of prompting is better on real life examples?

I had the same problem. Restarted Claude Code after an update, and now it has disappeared.

To reduce token count on command outputs you can also use RTK [0]

[0]: https://github.com/rtk-ai/rtk

Just before the end is this one-liner:

> the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type

Does this mean that we get a 35% price increase for a 5% efficiency gain? I'm not sure that's worth it.

Instead of focusing on the top 20 files, you can map the entire codebase with data taken from git log using ArcheoloGit [1].

[1]: https://github.com/marmelab/ArcheoloGit

Is "Agentic Engineering" is the new name for "Agent Experience"? If so, and even though I love Simon's contributions, there are many other guides to making codebases more welcoming to agents...

Shameless plug: I wrote one. https://marmelab.com/blog/2026/01/21/agent-experience.html

I hadn't heard that term before, is it widely used?

https://agentexperience.ax/ describes it as "refers to the holistic experience AI agents have when interacting with a product, platform, or system" which feels to me like a different concept to figuring out patterns for effectively using coding agents as a software engineer.

Thanks Hacker News for surfacing such jewels, and kudos to the author for such a great piece.

Although I will never use anything of what I learned from this article, I feel a better person since I’ve read it.

In one of the alternate universe I like to imagine, AI slop doesn’t exist and the Internet is filled with gorgeous pieces like this one.

I don't agree with the premise that we pay a subscription because there is no better and cheaper alternative. We pay Slack subscriptions but we could get IRC for free. We pay Google Drive subscription but we could get rsync for free.

The reason we pay a subscription is because the company that built the software knows our business, knows how to get in touch with the decision maker, and knows how to market their product as something desirable. The actual software has little influence in that decision.

On the contrary, I think the price of SaaS subscriptions will go up as a result of AI. Because the only customers who will switch to a cheaper (or home made) alternative are the ones for whom the software is a commodity. These customers used to form the long tail of subscriptions, usually on the lower tier. When the entry pricer disappears, and the software editor has to generate a high return for their investors, the only way to keep profitability is to increase the price for the other tiers.

I agree this could be a template that services like GitHub should propose, the same way as they suggest contributing and code of conduct templates.