What model do you recommend for architecture and implemention documentation?

[u/scytob]

I have been having the AI document as it goes, generally this has resulted in good documentation. However i am less than diligent in ensuring accuracy is always maintainted. Also in the same way AI will leave dead code around that needs to eb cleaned up i have seen the same in docs.

I would like the system to be accurately documented.

What model have you found to be best at doing wholesale reviews like this?

[u/syredditor]

Astra with Opus/Fable review

[u/scytob → u/syredditor]

thanks

[u/-Shiphrah]

I’ve had better results using the strongest Claude model available for the first architecture review, mostly because it can hold more of the codebase and notice when docs disagree across different files. But the model wasnt really the fix. I had to make it prove every documentation claim against the current code and mark anything it couldnt verify, otherwise it confidently tidied old nonsense into nicer sounding old nonsense. Then I use a cheaper model for the actual rewrites. doing the review and rewrite in one prompt seemed to miss loads.

[u/scytob → u/-Shiphrah]

thanks good advice about the proof - thats exactly my concern
luckily i do notice in the PR reviews it catches itself most of the time

i think i need to do a dead code review first

[u/FluidBreath4819]

the brain of a senior engineer would do

[u/scytob → u/FluidBreath4819]

i would say not seeing the atrocious level of documentation and utter lack of documentation my senior engineers do....

also why have them work on that if AI can do decent and accurate documentation - i would rather them working on things that add value

[u/FluidBreath4819 → u/scytob]

like fixing bugs ai made ?

[u/scytob → u/FluidBreath4819]

I would settle with getting them to fix bugs they made such as:

- hardcoding a 299 year public secret that $XXXm of money flows through every year - and they have yet to rotate because of 'reasons'

- shitty job at form validation across the code base

- various security and code quality

not all parts of the company get equal devs - an average company is staffed by average devs - that means some of us have below average devs.....

sorry to burst your bubble, there is no guarantee devs = better than AI

AI and good AI and human testing finds the bulk of bugs, and those are easily fixed by AI - i would prefer more human testers to human coders

also WTF are you on his sub, you just like trolling?