> This method seems to presume that a good engineer will submit a well thought-out solution or direction giving the AI an extremely good overview
Yes it does make that presumption - but that's part of the model here, that "prompt review" becomes the new code review and that the team is training on standard prompt semantics.
I'll share my outline - which is basically the one that was drilled into us in engineering school (CMU class 89)
1. Problem Statement
2. Definitions / Assumptions
3. Plan of attack / Options explored
4. Implemetation / Results
5. Limitations / Future Work
> So one would have to submit at least a half developed solution not just "instructions
The outline supports that in that you can fill out that part of the document which has been woeked on - including referencing any existing code.
Any other engineering students here recognize that outline?
Yes it does make that presumption - but that's part of the model here, that "prompt review" becomes the new code review and that the team is training on standard prompt semantics.
I'll share my outline - which is basically the one that was drilled into us in engineering school (CMU class 89)
1. Problem Statement
2. Definitions / Assumptions
3. Plan of attack / Options explored
4. Implemetation / Results
5. Limitations / Future Work
> So one would have to submit at least a half developed solution not just "instructions
The outline supports that in that you can fill out that part of the document which has been woeked on - including referencing any existing code.
Any other engineering students here recognize that outline?