Two things about that. On the one hand, I couldn't believe coding would be replaced when I started Agent Smith in January 2026. On the other hand, I wanted proof.

After 500k lines of code in Agent Smith, none of which I wrote by hand, I have to admit it: coding is more or less solved. That doesn't mean architects, developers, DevOps people and everyone else aren't needed anymore. I think they're needed more than ever.

Just implementing something isn't good enough. The spec has to point to sensible approaches and procedures, and the code has to be well structured (in my view, at least). Then the specs can simply run in parallel all night.

So my actual work on Agent Smith isn't coding at all. It's deciding what the right thing to build is, and how, in terms of design and architecture. I don't even review the code. But I do test it: 10k tests, a harness, a commit hook that blocks a spec while the suite is red, the whole story.

And unfortunately, that works pretty well. I also think last year's programming was more romantic :-D

I think both can be true: as coding languages go from lower to higher level, they go from being more implementation-like (e.g. assembly, C) to being more spec-like (e.g. Rust, Haskell). It then follows that writing a good spec could be considered coding if your compiler (or agent) can reliably turn that spec into your desired output.

So the main challenge I see with this approach is getting the spec right. Too little detail and the output is uncontrolled, too much detail and you're adding too many constraints (and you may be better off just writing code). From my experience, agents haven't been the best at writing good specs. But maybe this project can help with that?

Very confidently wrong.

Do you know why it's easier to specify theorems than it is their proofs? Or why ACSL != C?

You can go ahead and make a more specific argument, e.g. that mainstream UX-centric software development may not be amenable to current paradigms of formal verification, but to insinuate that a complete spec reduces to source code itself is naive.

EDIT: Possibly I have responded too acutely to the points you care less about. I agree that "in the future we won't need programmers" is questionable since good spec-writing and spec-vetting requires at least as much expertise, if not more, than ordinary coding work, and that is fair to call comprehensive spec work "code" in that it is technical and formal. But it is decisively not source code.

A couple of decades ago coding was "solved" by just writing UML diagrams. The nonsense never ends.

[flagged]

the agent creates and maintains the specs, doing this manually doesn't make sense. The specs are written for the agents. after execution of create-spec, review-spec skill will check against the code and add evidence of the spec's aims. Only when the aims fits to the evidence, the specs is going to be validated successful. after that apply and deliver skills can be executed. finally there is commit hooks and tests that shall ensure quality and functionality. have a look at https://github.com/holgerleichsenring/agent-smith for the quality gates.

they do work well in production. have a look at https://github.com/holgerleichsenring/agent-smith. While writing that the methodology had been created. Obviously, I didnt know upfront what I wanted to generate here. Also features are changed or removed on the way. that's not a problem, when the specifications are part of the git repository as it is done here. Actually it's the other way around: it is an advantage as the agent can have a look at everything that had been done previously and can understand what, why and how it had been implemented. give it a try :-)

[flagged]