
As I'm not a professional developer but a guy who needs to use automation to get things done, I...
As I'm not a professional developer but a guy who needs to use automation to get things done, I follow one main rule: keep it simple. Overengineering hurts. I use the Pareto rule—spend 20% of the effort to get 80% of the result.
When I use AI agents like Antigravity, my goal is not to let the AI write complex code that no one can read. My goal is to build simple, secure features fast. At the same time, I control costs by saving tokens. Here is the exact workflow I use.
You can listen a podcast generated based on this publication (thanks NotebookLM):
{% youtube DkDfPMzXDXk %}
LLM tokens cost money. Using a smart, expensive model just to fix code spaces is not worth the cost. I change models based on how hard the task is.

Large prompts can break LLMs. If a prompt has too much text, the AI gets confused and wastes tokens. To stop this, I break every task into small, separate pieces so the AI only sees what it needs.
I store all architecture plans and tasks inside the code repository (for example, ./docs). This keeps the instructions very close to the code for the AI.
Every task I write uses this strict four-part structure:
To keep the AI agent aligned with the goals, I pass strict system instructions on every run. It never lets the model guess my coding standards. Here are the core rules enforced:
Every feature goes through a step-by-step process. I'm trying to keep security and simplicity as the main focus at each step.
Using a High-Tier Model.
Using a Low or Mid-Tier Model for code and Mid or High-Tier Model for review.

Using Free External Tools & A Custom Nanoservice.
autopep8, ruff, and pylint to save tokens.main branch. It works like an automatic review from the CTO, CISO, and CFO. It checks every line for good architecture, proper security access, and cost impact before the code goes to production. Why is it so important? The Quality Gate is not overwhelmed by the full chat history inside the IDE. Its "fresh eye" often finds architectural and coding flaws that were missed by the IDE models, even after 6 to 9 rounds of review.

AI coding is not magic. In my experience, it requires a strict testing gate, smart model swapping, and simple design. By owning the process and letting the AI act as a typist, it is possible to ship secure code fast. I share this approach for an open discussion on how we can build better automation.
aiMost of us have seen a coding agent fail to complete a task we know it can do. We just don't...
googlecloudWhen building Generative AI applications, developers often encounter a massive bottleneck: sequential...
discussI’ve been thinking about sharing some electronic circuit posts on Dev.to — small circuits, DIY...
agentsWhat nobody tells you about exporting your multi-agent prototype to a local workspace. Every...
agenticarchitectAutonomous agents are genuinely good at answering messy business questions. Give one an LLM and a set...
aiPR volume went up, ticket quality didn't, and the gap got filled with LLMs on both sides of the review: bots reviewing, bots replying, bots occasionally arguing with bots about priorities that only existed in a teammate's head. Our CEO named the actual problem, and it's bigger than code review.
Workflows from the Neura Market marketplace related to this Stable Diffusion resource