The 505-Commit Invoice
The article discusses the challenges faced in a project where requirements were overly detailed yet missed key aspects of the problem. It highlights the limitations of relying on AI for understanding complex systems, as it can extend but not maintain them effectively. The author reflects on the importance of client communication regarding their intentions to use AI for future coding tasks.
- ▪The project initially had a solid foundation but faced issues when overly detailed requirements documents were introduced.
- ▪The author observed that the reliance on AI for coding led to a lack of understanding of the system's complexities.
- ▪The distinction between extending and maintaining code is crucial, as maintenance requires a deeper understanding of existing systems.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
← Tin's Posts · May 29, 2026 · 3 min read The 505-Commit Invoice The project had started well. Solid client, interesting problem, concrete scope. Then requirements docs started showing up. Long. Structured. The type that has every edge case covered, every user story mapped, every field labeled. Thorough. Too thorough. Something was off about the asks. They covered the surface exhaustively and missed the centre entirely. The framing was too even, the language too clean - clearly not raw notes. 'twas raw notes chewed through Gemini (or somesuch). On its face: still rational. Here's a requirements doc, design and build what it describes. The problem was that nobody asked the right questions. The LLM asks what it knows to ask.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Tinthe.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Tinthe
