Local coding agents help, but still need close supervision
Local are useful for small fixes, reading a codebase, editing files, and handling dull code work. They become less reliable when they are given too much freedom.
They may change unrelated files, produce code that looks fine but does not work, or drift away from the original task. The most reliable workflow is to give a small task, run tests, check the diff, fix the odd part, and repeat.
This saves time, but a person still needs to watch the work closely and steer it. For now, local seem better as supervised helpers than as fully independent workers.
Key points
- Local are useful for small code changes and reading a .
- They can go wrong when given broad freedom.
- The safer workflow is small task, tests, diff check, fix, repeat.
- They still need a person watching the work closely.
- Cost savings should include review time, not only model costs.