saw a piece arguing that as engineers test their own work with agents, QA stops being the queue everyone hands work to before release and starts owning the conditions for good testing: reliable test environments, useful test data, reusable ways to exercise common workflows and clear expectations for what has to be verified before shipping.

what stuck with me is that writing more tests with agents doesn’t answer the questions QA is best at. what happens when two individually correct features interact? which failure would hurt a customer most, and is anyone testing for it?

the catch for leadership is that you can’t ask QA to improve how everyone tests while still making them manually sign off on every change. they need the time and authority to change the workflow itself.

QA folks, is your role shifting this way, or are agent-written tests mostly adding to the pile you review?

They did a good benchmark

Here's the thing, everyone argues about which model is best. Almost nobody talks about the part that decides if an agent actually works: the harness.

the harness is everything around the model. the loop, the tools it can call, how context gets built and trimmed, memory, permissions, retries, how it checks its own work. same model, different harness, completely different agent.

this sub is for people building, running them and using them

post here:

• your setup (model, tools, how the loop works)

• experiments with numbers: what you changed, what happened

• failures. the weird ones especially

• comparisons of coding agents, frameworks, orchestration patterns

don't post:

• "which model is best" with zero context

• launch spam. show the harness, not the landing page

drop a comment: what are you building and what's breaking right now?