Translating pseudo-code to real code is almost table stakes for any decent LLM at this point. But getting architectural feedback in the same abstraction layer you think in, that's a different thing entirely. I've noticed something similar when working with Claude Code. The quality of the back-and-forth improves significantly when you stay at the intention level rather than jumping straight to implementation. Once you're in the weeds of actual syntax, the conversation tends to collapse into micro-corrections. Staying pseudo keeps the design space open longer. One thing I'd be curious about: how does it handle the translation when your pseudo-code has ambiguous control flow? That's usually where I hit the wall. The semantic intent is clear to me but there are three or four valid ways to implement it and the model just picks one without flagging the decision.