Despite having read articles discussing when to delegate to AI discussing agent completion time, agent success probability and human verification time the thought of genuinely systematising and solving the problem of verification and QA never occurred to me. My mind is still in the mode where “building” and “shipping” are noble goals that are to be sought after even though that era is dead due to how low the difficulty bar has dropped (the bar is six feet deep). We should build and we should ship faster, but only considering those aspects is irresponsible and childish. With these new automated reasoning systems we ought to validate in as much as possible before presenting anything to the user.

Possibly the most salient point in the article is the following: “for the love of god, put [...] whatever tool du jour you're using to blow up your codebase, and make sure every claim in your README, every claim in your docs (you have docs, right?), every claim on your website is 100% tested and validated. Run actual rigorous benchmarks. Set up E2E tests driven by behavioral specs. Take your users seriously enough to deliver a good experience out of the box rather than trying to use hype to drive uptake then hoping they'll provide you with free QA”.

Personally this really resonated with the absolute fatigue I feel inside when I see a new “Show HN” to a GitHub repository in the year of our lord 2026. I’ve been burned by “slop” repos so much that my I already feel the Claude emoji drivel coming and sure enough a lot of the time that’s all a repo is, the abandoned and uncared for orphan child born of a passionate one night stand with Claude Code. Not a single screenshot or demo video in sight, just plausible promises dumped into a file for end users to figure out.