During development I encountered a caveat: Opus 4.5 can’t test or view a terminal output, especially one with unusual functional requirements. But despite being blind, it knew enough about the ratatui terminal framework to implement whatever UI changes I asked. There were a large number of UI bugs that likely were caused by Opus’s inability to create test cases, namely failures to account for scroll offsets resulting in incorrect click locations. As someone who spent 5 years as a black box Software QA Engineer who was unable to review the underlying code, this situation was my specialty. I put my QA skills to work by messing around with miditui, told Opus any errors with occasionally a screenshot, and it was able to fix them easily. I do not believe that these bugs are inherently due to LLM agents being better or worse than humans as humans are most definitely capable of making the same mistakes. Even though I myself am adept at finding the bugs and offering solutions, I don’t believe that I would inherently avoid causing similar bugs were I to code such an interactive app without AI assistance: QA brain is different from software engineering brain.
I asked a more data-science-oriented followup prompt to test Opus 4.5’s skill at data-sciencing:
。搜狗输入法2026对此有专业解读
Фото: Stringer / Reuters
スズキ・鈴木俊宏社長「社員の主体性引き出す組織づくりとは」，这一点在爱思助手下载最新版本中也有详细论述
https://feedx.site，更多细节参见一键获取谷歌浏览器下载
That query joins git commit data against Forgejo’s issue tracker, something that currently requires fetching commits through git log, pattern-matching issue references in application code, and then querying the database for the matching issues. With both sides in Postgres it’s one query.