# Asking vs Delegating AI Agents 🧐 > Source: > Published: 2026-06-26 12:59:52+00:00 Most developers use AI like a **smarter Stack Overflow**. Type a question. Get an answer. Go do the work **yourself**. That's fine but it's the slow way 😩 There's a faster mode, and most people haven't switched to it yet. When you ask an **AI**: "How do I write tests for my auth module?" You get a nice explanation. Then you write the tests yourself. You're still doing the work 🥸 When you **delegate** to an AI agent: "Write tests for `/src/auth.py` . Cover login, logout, and invalid token cases. Run them. If any fail, fix the code until they pass. Tell me what you changed." The agent `opens` your files, `writes` the tests, `runs` them, `reads` the failures, `fixes` the code, and `comes back` to you with a working test suite. You review the result. You didn't do the work. That's the shift 🙂↔️ It sounds small. The `time difference is huge` . Every delegation that works has **four parts**. Think of it like giving a task to a new team member: Here's what that looks like in practice: **Debugging:** "Here's the error and the stack trace. Find the root cause, fix it, and explain what was broken." **Why this works:** You're not asking what the error means. You're `handing over` the whole problem, find it, `fix` it, `explain` it 😎 **Refactoring:** "Refactor this file. Max two levels of nesting. No single function longer than 30 lines. Update every call site in the codebase." **Why this works:** The constraints are `clear and checkable` . The agent knows exactly when it's done 🧐 **Database migration:** "Write a migration script for this schema change. Make it idempotent. Run it against a local test database and `confirm` it succeeds." **Why this works:** You gave it a way to `verify its own work` before coming back to you 🤔 **PR review:** "Read this PR diff. Find anything that could fail in production. Write the tests I missed." **Why this works:** Two goals, both specific. The agent can do both end to end 🥵 **Data pipeline:** "This pipeline has no tests. `Write a test` suite that checks: schema consistency at each step, no data leakage between train and validation sets, and correct handling of null values." **Why this works:** A boring job that always gets skipped. Now it's a 5-minute task 🥱 **Before you open your IDE:** "Here's the Jira ticket. Find the relevant files in the repo. Give me a summary of what needs to change before I write a single line." **Why this works:** You start coding with context instead of spending 20 minutes doing archaeology 🥱 Agents are fast. They're also wrong sometimes, not randomly, but in predictable ways. Here's how to catch it without spending 40 minutes re-reviewing everything. **Check 1:** Did it actually solve the problem? `Run the code` . Don't just read it. Agents can write code that looks completely correct and `fails in a specific edge case` . The only way to `find out is to execute it` . If there are tests, run them. If there aren't, run the thing manually. Or let the agent write the test code. Reading code feels like reviewing. **Actually running it is reviewing**. **Check 2:** Does it fit your codebase? The agent doesn't know your `team's conventions` . It doesn't know why that module is structured that way, or that you decided last quarter never to use that pattern again. Technically correct code `can still be wrong` for your situation. Scan the output for anything that feels off, an unusual pattern, a library you don't use, an approach that doesn't match how the rest of the codebase works. That's the thing `only you can catch` . **Check 3:** Did it change anything you didn't ask about? Check which files it touched. `Read the diff` like you'd read a PR from a junior developer. Agents sometimes make `helpful` changes, cleaning up something nearby, refactoring a function that wasn't in scope. Sometimes `that's great` . Sometimes `it breaks` something else. Know what it touched before you accept it. **The evaluation matrix** The mindset shift in one sentence | What to check | The question to ask | Red flag | |---|---|---| | Goal | Did it actually solve the problem? | Tests pass but logic is wrong | | Fit | Would your team merge this as-is? | Right code, wrong conventions | | Scope | Did it only touch what you asked? | Changed files you didn't mention | That review takes 5–10 minutes on most tasks. Not 40. Your job changes **from doing the work to defining the goal and reviewing the result**. You bring **judgment and context**. The agent brings **speed and tirelessness.** **What do you think? 🤔 Drop it in the comments**