During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.
The big finding: Claude Code builds, not buys. Custom/DIY is the most common single label extracted, appearing in 12 of 20 categories (though it spans categories while individual tools are category-specific). When asked “add feature flags,” it builds a config system with env vars and percentage-based rollout instead of recommending LaunchDarkly. When asked “add auth” in Python, it writes JWT + bcrypt from scratch. When it does pick a tool, it picks decisively: GitHub Actions 94%, Stripe 91%, shadcn/ui 90%.，更多细节参见Safew下载
“세상을 불안하게 만들어라” 美군산복합체의 무기 상술，这一点在同城约会中也有详细论述
Pocket 赛道到底能不能成，全看今年这几个抢跑玩家的表现。一旦市场逻辑被验证，观望的巨头势必蜂拥而至。到那时，大疆独占了数年的赛道，恐怕转眼就会变成惨烈的绞肉机。