Ask HN: When can we trust AI in coding, and avoid the happy path issue?

I have a question, and I hope you can clarify it. Consider this scenario: Claude code runs on a desktop to develop a solution, and its directive requires Codex to test everything it does under a different directive. The Codex directive is to refute Claude's test results, maintain its own test ledger, and return PASS or NO PASS. Claude cannot negotiate; it has to fix the NO PASS issues. Even with such a strict environment, I am ending up with problems, and of course, when asking Claude, the answer is "This is on me; I did not do X and Y"; when I ask it whether Codex checked it, "Codex checked all but not this "... So when can we trust the AI to do the full job, not just the happy path? Is there a better way to impose quality? I feel that on large projects, even if I upload Claude directives to re-read, Claude or Codex (we can switch roles) tends to drift and miss things. Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50209084 Points: 1 # Comments: 5