Draft talk:AI code agent

Peer Review

Overall, this article seems very well-developed and comprehensive! Even as a new article, a lot of ground seems to have been covered, and each section has substantial contributions. I note that sometimes your sources are inserted in the middle of your writing as plaintext instead of a footnote, please make sure to fix this, as well as add all of your additional sources as in-text citations as well. Also, I think it would be a good idea to add Wikilinks into your article to allow readers to easily access concepts or mentions of products that have their own dedicated pages. The transforming perceptions" bullet point of your "Historical Development" section could be transformed into its own subsection (the same could be said about the other bullet points, but the last one the most of all), but appears fine as it is. Other than this, your stile of writing seems very suitable and in the format of a Wikipedia page, and I can't highlight any notable areas for extra elaboration/discussion. Energy2048 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Peer Review (Jo)

This is a comprehensive and interesting history of AI automated code agents. My main suggestion for improvement is stylistic. Currently, this article is not in the citation style of Wikipedia and lacks links to other Wikipedia entries. For example, when you're talking about automated theorem provers, there's a lot of Wikipedia entries on that. In addition, the sections are not formatted in the style of a Wikipedia article. Other than that, the content is really informative and I agree with you that vibe coding is not a sufficient description of AI-automated code agents. It would also be interesting to add the AI-automated code benchmark by eg Epoch AI. JoNeedsSleep (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)