Original Summary

AI agents write PHP fast, and they make the same mistakes fast. I've been seeing patterns like: catch (Throwable) blocks that silently hide failures 200-line controller actions queries inside loops // ... existing code ... left where a method body should be tests "fixed" with assertTrue(true) duplicated code that slowly drifts apart placeholder implementations that look complete enough to pass review I built Sloppy , an open-source PHP code-quality tool that tries to catch these while an AI coding agent is still working, rather than after the code reaches review. The interesting part is the agent workflow. With Claude Code (and other supported agents), Sloppy can run after PHP edits and report only the problems introduced by that edit. The agent can then fix them immediately. It can also be used without an AI agent: sloppy diff main sloppy review main sloppy baseline There's also a GitHub Action, SARIF/Code Quality output, a Pest expectation, an MCP server, and sloppy fix for handing mechanical fixes to Rector/Pint. The important distinction is that Sloppy isn't trying to detect whether AI wrote the code . It looks for code patterns that are problematic regardless of who wrote them. The same code produces the same result, and --explain-risk shows why something was flagged. I'm particularly interested in false positives. I'm treating them as bugs rather than something to hide. If you work with AI coding agents: What are the worst shortcuts you've seen them take in real codebases? I'd like to turn those into rules. GitHub: https://github.com/heyosseus/sloppy   submitted by   /u/ReadingFormal [link]   [comments]

  • 情报分类：商业与市场研究
  • 分类依据：内容涉及商业、投资或市场动态
  • 信息来源：Reddit · SideProject
  • 发布时间：2026/10/4 18:16:48