Europe 2026
Your coding agent doesn't always follow your rules — Talha Sheikh, Checkout.com
Overview
This talk addresses the common issue where AI coding agents, despite appearing to complete tasks, often produce outputs that fail upon execution or do not meet specifications. The core argument is that the value is shifting from the agent's ability to generate code to the developer's ability to design and implement robust verification systems, or harnesses, that ensure the agent's output is reliable and deterministic.
Who should watch
- AI Engineers and Developers building with or integrating AI agents.
- Product Managers evaluating the reliability and trustworthiness of AI-generated code.
- Builders seeking to improve the consistency and correctness of AI agent workflows.
- Anyone experiencing issues with AI agents not reliably following instructions or producing functional code.
Key takeaways
- AI agents often claim task completion, but manual verification is still required because there's no built-in enforcement layer to guarantee correctness.
- Increased model capability does not automatically equate to increased reliability; a deterministic verification mechanism is crucial.
- Developing effective verification systems, or harnesses, is more valuable than solely focusing on agent instruction or code generation.
- A robust harness allows for the use of smaller, potentially cheaper models by providing guardrails that ensure desired outputs.
- The trend is towards building enforcement and verification layers rather than solely relying on more advanced models.
- This verification pattern needs to be language-agnostic and applicable across various stages of development, from conversational checks to multi-agent workflows.
- Companies like Anthropic (executed advisor pattern) and OpenAI (harness engineering) are developing similar verification approaches.
- The focus should be on building the verification system (harness) rather than just the agent's code.
Notable quotes
*The agent says it's done but you have to check it anyway because there's nothing else that can check it for you.*
*It's not about whether Claude can actually do the task, it's about trust.*
*The value is not in the code that we create, but it's actually now in reality is what we're seeing here is the verification that we design.*
Unofficial community note. Prefer the recording for nuance.