It can make a vague ticket precise and that can be an easy platform to have discussions with stakeholders.
Thank you for sharing this workflow. I have low tolerance for LLM written text, but this seems like a really good use case.
"Wait until you learn that most people's writing skills are that of below LLMs"
... went askew at "that of below LLMs".
I'm an arse: soz!
As long as you are also paying attention to the content and not just form.
I find having an LLM create tickets for itself to implement to be an effective tool that I rarely have to provide feedback for at all.
This seems like greybeards complaining that people who don't write assembly by hand.
Stop being outraged for things that are only real on your mind.
Am I outraged?
And yes, there absolutely was a vocal group of a certain type of programmer complaining about high level languages like C and their risks and inefficiency and lack of control insisting that real programmers wrote code in assembly. It's hard to find references because google sucks these days and I'm not really willing to put in the effort.
From time to time I have talked over a ticket with an LLM and gotten back what I think is a useful analysis of the problem and put it into the text or comments and I find my peeps tend to think these are TLDR.
An LLM will be just as verbose as you ask it to be. The default response can be very chatty, but you can figure out how to ask it to give results in various lengths.
