HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
71% Positive
Analyzed from 1757 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#code#change#changes#single#project#complexity#metric#quality#looking#impact
Discussion (37 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
There is an implication that all AI changes add complexity and reduce quality, but it is obvious that the quality and complexity is a property of the code not the writer, so all equivalent changes should be equal no matter what the shource.
How do clear improvements to make something simpler yet more functional score under this system?
The problem with cohesion is understanding what is "single purpose". Nothing can determine this without interpreting the code and making a judgement call on whether it needs to be refactored into two or more classes.
So I'm looking to approximate this. Instead of looking for cohesion, Change Impact formula approximates this by looking at existing complexity in the file.
If the change adds more complex functions to an already complex class, it scores high. Smell of it doing too many things.
If the change adds a complex function to an empty file, it's likely just a complex single problem.
If the change adds simple change to complex file, then if this happens too many times, we flag it for concern. Especially if it changes a lot of other files too.
So it's not mean to measure your code exactly. It's meant to highlight smell that needs investigation. And the formula points out the classes that need looking at.
Plus I'm not sure that all changes are equivalent. I'm not looking at single one off changes. I'm looking at 60 changes in a row. The first 20 might go through fine. However, after the changes pile on, there needs to be some refactoring to keep the code clean. This is trying to catch it before it becomes a mess.
Compactly formatted user messages are something an agent can ingest in a few minutes, even if they are thousands of lines long. And the quality of those messages is great: they don't track what the agent does well, only what changes and what breaks.
Having this top-down view helps a lot. Usually, within a session and deep into a task, the agent loses the global perspective and optimizes for local success. I find it weird there is no harness that treats user messages as high value signal (except my own, of course, I have it, https://github.com/horiacristescu/playbook-harness).
High cohesion means the functionality of a component are closely related and focused on performing a single well defined task. Basically single classes for single purposes.
Erosion of this is when classes start doing to many things, in the case of God classes.
The Change Impact formula looks at a way of detecting when the cohesion is eroding and flagging it on a change (as the pull/merge request itself should generally be single focus cohesive change)
Do you mean like the hyper focus an LLM puts on the task in front of it so you end up with drift (duplicated concepts/multiple ways of doing things, terminology drift (e.g., now we have "customer" and "client"). That sort of thing?
Yes, there are generally complex algorithms but they usually are not things developers write (imported from libraries).
What is usually going on in the god class/method is that things keep getting added to it. These things should be separated out. So the cohesiveness of the class/method erodes into doing too many things.
The idea of the Change Impact formula is to catch this early so you start refactoring to separate out into classes with single cohesive purposes.
The problem with AI is it handles complexity really well and will happily keep piling changes into god classes/methods reaching ridiculous CC levels (have see over 200). Previously developers would get annoyed and do the refactor. But with AI these days, changes are happening faster. So Change Impact is to try to monitor the cohesive erosion.
While a lot of metrics make intuitive sense, we don’t have that much hard evidence to prove or disprove their value. Part of it is the whole “if a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric” thing. Adding the checks to a large existing project probably has negative value. But I think it’s worth doing for greenfield projects.
For humans, these should just be advisory. But for LLMs I’m happy enough to make it a blocking check.
I keep thinking of doing an experiment where I give the same LLM the same problem, and only change which metric is enforced. And then see if any of them have a noticeable effect on correctness/maintainability.
> any examples of how people get this into an actual report / CI test / benchmark / whatever ?
Yeah they have examples of adding it to CI, or local checks, generate html reports, etc in their docs.
I've been in the process of reviewing and validating a lot of tools like this (qlty, Sonarqube, fallow, etc) and the false positive rate is anywhere from 20% to 80% for a lot of our sniff tests (zizmor produces an overwhelming majority of false positives here for what feels like arbitrary and very context-dependent GHA requirements)
the last thing I want to do is to annoy the hell out of our devs by requiring checks like these to pass especially since it's only a small percentage of them who vibe code everything and then also vibe response to code reviews. I feel like that's the anti-pattern that we'd push people towards by requiring checks like these to pass
another avenue of exploration has been requiring test coverage but also good test quality metrics (eg are there negative tests? mutation testing? empty asserts?) something that seems quite easy to spin up into a skill and pair with a deterministic harness. trash-tests is a neat little project that incorporates some of this: https://github.com/frangelbarrera/trash-tests (disclosure: I am not the repo owner or even a contributor, just a quality nerd who loves underdogs lol)
all in all, it really does feel like we'll need a revamp of the SDLC with our current expected velocities
I was testing the additive pipeline style of OfficeFloor against the mutative handler style of Spring. I was looking to see what factors could be used to allow AI to make long on going changes (experiment is 60 changes to an end point, where all add functionality and every 4th change is mutative on existing rules). Then I watch how AI manages to make the 60 changes in each architecture.
I've done many runs and you are quite right about Goodhart effect in giving it the metric. Never knew Spring code could be written so badly.
I've tried runs with better prompting also and I'm starting to find the key factor is actually the architecture itself.
From my initial findings, it's seeming that additive pipeline architectures hold up much better against AI slop than our typically single method web handler architectures.
BTW, you can avoid your comments being flagged and killed by writing them yourself! I know it’s tempting to offshore it to AI (especially after you’ve vibe-coded a whole project) but some genuine human communication goes a long way.
The only thing is that these issues seem like human code problems and IME LLMs don’t really write code like this anymore. It’s almost the opposite in python, actually, where Claude leans on writing lots of 2-3 liner private utils which is a separate kind of complexity and organization problem.
I still find it useful specifically for React where it’s frustratingly normalized to write many branches in your JSX though.
Claude is pretty good at adding focused changes and if a fix is already present, then it correctly points it out rather than adding unnecessary refactors.