Towards Data Science

How to Debug AI Coding Agents When They Change the Wrong Thing

A practical tutorial for recording model tool requests, real function results, patches, checks, screenshots, and a saved run log. The post How to Debug AI Coding Agents When They Change the Wrong Thing appeared first on Towards Data Science .

Towards Data Science
Aug 27

How to Work with AI Coding Agents

The article "How to Work with AI Coding Agents" offers a practical guide aimed at improving code quality rather than merely increasing quantity. It focuses on strategies and best practices for effectively collaborating with AI coding tools to produce better code. The post was originally published on Towards Data Science.

By Sara A. Metwalli
Towards Data Science
Aug 23

Bug Detection Blind Spots in AI Coding Harnesses (GStack and Beyond)

The article "Bug Detection Blind Spots in AI Coding Harnesses (GStack and Beyond)" reports on 28 debugging experiments that show AI coding tools struggle more with missing information than with code complexity. It highlights that these tools exhibit blind spots when key details are absent, affecting their debugging performance.

By Nhu Hoang
Simon Willison
Aug 22

More than just code review

The article discusses the essential skill of effectively instructing coding agents and verifying their changes. It highlights that while line‑by‑line code review is one method, it is not the most efficient way to validate software changes. The focus is on confidently guiding agents and confirming correct implementation without exhaustive inspection.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24

Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

The paper introduces a dataset of the complete development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, accompanied by two code‑provenance tracing tools and three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability. Analysis reveals that user CLI instructions differ from IDE‑chat instructions, focusing more on comprehension, planning, and consultation; code development is largely proactive; 14.3% of AI code‑generation events contain errors later caught by the AI‑authored test suite; and roughly one in four to five of the AI’s interactive responses contain factual errors.