Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Thorsten Ball no published score: only 3 usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ · coarse estimate ≈4.5/5 from 3 raw tape exchanges record → ← everyone
Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5.
An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression.
The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the
cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only
toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 5 · Cm 4 4.85
Q I can also go into CLI and use some code. Was that an easy choice? Like, was there a lot of discussion on we should just do one of the modes? Like supporting both is obviously more work, right? And a lot of these products don't support both. So what was that initial design choice of the structure of the product? And then we'll dive into the models as well.
A So we started with the VS Code extension because it was the easiest thing to get off the ground. Like when you have a VS Code extension, you have a marketplace, you can ship this, you can update it 15 times every day. You don't have to think about updating stuff. You also are next to the editor. And looking back, you know, it's been six months, the editor might be dying or you might do a lot of coding outside the editor. Back then it sounded much more radical than it does sound right now. So we started with like, let's explore this and having the thing next to your editor is a good place to start. And we could, you know, you can see the cursor, you can do selection and whatnot, but we were really like, um, from the start, we didn't want to have like a deeply integrated thing. It was always like, ah, let's keep the feature small. We got to be able to move fast. And then we build up the CLI on the side as like a different client, which also It also gives us the ability to abstract like the core and the client stuff. So that's a nice boundary to have. But then to be 100% honest, we were also surprised by how many people were fine with using a CLI for Cloud Code, for example. Like if you had asked me half a year ago, I would have said no way, like a CLI tool. And what we realized is, well, a CLI is not just, you know, It's a UI, sure, but also it's a CLI program. That means you can…
AI assessment note: “we started with the VS Code extension because it was the easiest thing”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q What are those things? What are like the failure modes that you heard from customers where it's like, hey, we tried AMP and it just didn't work at doing X, Y, Z. Is there a collection of those that you guys use as almost like a North Star as you keep building or?
A But I think like one of the things is, um, the whole vibe coding stuff where people just use it and, you know, they're like, Hey, I spent 10 bucks in tokens and it didn't build me the fall app or something. Um, the failure mode of outsourcing the thinking, but not the typing, which I think it should be the opposite. You still have to know engineering. You still have to know how to program. You still have to know your application and its architecture, how it's deployed. And then basically use the agent to do the work that you would have done But you have to know what the desired outcome is and whatnot. Like that's a common one where people just, you know, hands off the wheel, agent, you go and write this for me. And then turns out a couple hours later, oh, actually this, nobody understands that it's spaghetti code.
AI assessment note: “The failure mode of outsourcing the thinking, but not the typing”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 3 3.85
Q and then we have dinner and I go back and I'm like, what the fuck is going on here again? It's like, which one is doing what? And it's like, it's hard to like, just at a high level, see what each of them is working on, where it's getting blocked. Have you guys seen anything that works there? Have you been thinking about building any tools in that space?
A I agree. Right. I, I feel this too. I think, you know, with our internal experiments, I think, you know, for example, this idea of, well, I just Spontane agents and they work and I control them. I think Stevie is doing this and he has like a whole workflow around this and it seems to work for him. But for me, I guess I'm a one tasker in my mind. Like I need to, I can't do this. Like I cannot control five agents at the same time. And then when I do it asynchronously, I realized that I need to be really strict about how I review what they've done and that I'd also don't jump between them. And then it's also, you know, Making sure that you don't miss anything. Like I spun up so many agents and then haven't checked back on them because I forgot that they actually run. So that's something you need to build in the product. But yeah, I don't think it's figured out, you know, like it's a, there's so much to do still.
AI assessment note: “So that's something you need to build in the product. But yeah, I don't think”
