I'm now able to tell my agent “we are going to work on JIRA-1234” and it goes and pulls down the task, makes me a plan, I say yeah okay that looks good, and it generates the commit. I run an AI review from a different session, it finds 4 issues of varying priorities, I paste it to my original agent and say validate these findings and fix them if necessary, it creates a fix, I run another review, no more high priority issues found. I open up the code in an IDE to go over it before pushing it up for human review. Looks fine I guess, nothing crazy. I try to understand everything before I push it up for review because if this breaks, it's still my name on it. I say why did you make this one change, it gives me a reasonable explanation for why. It says something codebaity like "if you want I can suggest 2 more ways you could really tighten up this work to prevent some rare but possible regressions". I'm smart enough to not fall for it. Code pushed up, task moved to in-review. I didn't write any of it, this is not my accomplishment. Users won't care who wrote it if it works. A lot done in 20 mins but it felt soulless.

Doing some experiments today with Opus 4.6's 1M context window. Trying to push coding sessions deep into what I would consider the 'dumb zone' of SOTA models: >100K tokens. The drop-off in quality is really noticeable. Dumber decisions, worse code, worse instruction-following. Don't treat 1M context window any differently. It's still 100K of smart, and 900K of dumb.