> Another rather interesting thing is that they tend to gravitate towards sweep the errors under the rug kind of coding which is disastrous. e.g. "return X if we don't find the value so downstream doesn't crash".

Yes, these are painful and basically the main reason I moved from Claude to Gemini - it felt insane to be begging the AI - "No, you actually have to fix the bug, in the code you wrote, you cannot just return some random value when it fails, it actually has to work".

Claude in particular abuses the word 'Comprehensive' a lot. You express that you're unhappy with its approach, it will likely comeback with "Comprehensive plan to ..." and then write like 3 bullet points under it, that is of course after profusely apologizing. On a sidenote, I wish LLMs never apologized and instead just said I don't know how to do this.

> their propensity to jump into code without necessarily understanding the requirement is annoying to say the least.

Then don't let it, collaborate on the spec, ask Claude to make a plan. You'll get far better results

https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/claude-code-best-pract...

Running LLM code with kernel privileges seems like courting disaster. I wouldn't dare do that unless I had a rock-solid grasp of the subsystem, and at that point, why not just write the code myself? LLM coding is on-average 20% slower.

In my experience in a Java code base, it didn't do any of this, and did a good job with exceptions.

And I have to disagree that these aren't errors that beginners or even intermediates make. Who hasn't swallowed an error because "that case totally, most definitely won't ever happen, and I need to get this done"?