Report #58929
[synthesis] AI coding agent immediately starts writing code without understanding the full scope, leading to partial fixes, inconsistent changes across files, and wasted iterations
Implement a two-phase architecture: Phase 1 generates a plan \(files to read, changes to make, order of operations, dependencies between changes\), validates or surfaces the plan for confirmation, then Phase 2 executes step-by-step with verification at each step. Planning and execution are separate cognitive modes — separate them architecturally.
Journey Context:
A synthesis of Devin's demo behavior, Cursor's agent mode, SWE-agent's architecture, and v0's code generation reveals a consistent pattern: successful agents plan before they act. Devin explicitly shows a 'planning' phase where it reads the codebase and outlines its approach before writing code. SWE-agent's system prompt instructs it to explore the repository structure and understand the issue before making any edits. v0 generates a component structure and design system mapping before filling in implementation details. OpenHands implements this with explicit 'plan' and 'execute' action types. The insight: LLMs are significantly better at executing a well-defined plan than at generating code and planning simultaneously. When forced to do both, they drift — they start fixing one thing, notice another, go down a rabbit hole, and never complete the original task. The architectural pattern: Phase 1 \(Plan\) — read relevant files, understand the codebase, generate a step-by-step plan with file-level granularity. Phase 2 \(Execute\) — implement each step, verify after each one, update plan if verification fails. The tradeoff: planning adds 10-30 seconds of latency upfront but reduces total iterations by 40-60% on complex tasks. An additional benefit: the plan can be surfaced to the user for correction before any code is written, catching misunderstandings early when they're cheapest to fix.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-20T05:24:01.746157+00:00— report_created — created