Journal
AI writes the code. We review every line.
80% of our code is AI-generated. Here's why that makes it better, not worse — and what the other 20% looks like.
aidevelopmentquality
When we say "80% of code is written by AI," people hear two things:
Skeptics hear: "So you're just pasting ChatGPT output and charging for it."
Believers hear: "So you ship 5x faster and it's all magic."
Both are wrong.
What AI actually does well:
- Boilerplate: API routes, form validation, CRUD operations, type definitions
- Pattern repetition: if you've done one data table, AI does the next nine
- Test generation: describe what the function should do, AI writes the test
- Refactoring: "convert this to use server actions" takes seconds
What AI does poorly:
- Architecture decisions (which database? how to structure the API?)
- Edge cases (what happens when the payment webhook fires twice?)
- Integration debugging (why is the GHL API returning 422?)
- Performance (why is this page taking 4 seconds to load?)
The 20% we write by hand is the 20% that determines whether the product works in production or crashes on day two.
Our actual workflow:
- Architect the system (human, no AI)
- Generate scaffolding and boilerplate (AI, reviewed)
- Implement business logic (AI draft → human edit)
- Handle edge cases and integrations (human, with AI assistance)
- Test and deploy (AI-generated tests, human QA)
The result: we ship in weeks what used to take months. Not because we cut corners — because AI eliminated the boring parts and let us focus on the parts that matter.