Without having tried it (caveat), I worry that 100% coverage to an LLM will lock in bad assumptions and incorrect functionality. It makes it harder for it to identify something that is wrong.
That said, we're not talking about vibe coding here, but properly reviewed code, right? So the human still goes "no, this is wrong, delete these tests and implement for these criteria"?
Yep, 100% correct. We're still reviewing and advising on test cases. We also write a PRD beforehand (with the LLM interviewing us!) so the scope and expectations tend to be fairly well-defined.
That said, we're not talking about vibe coding here, but properly reviewed code, right? So the human still goes "no, this is wrong, delete these tests and implement for these criteria"?