Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

AI & QA Accelerator

604 members โ€ข Free

AI Automation Society

351.3k members โ€ข Free

1 contribution to AI & QA Accelerator
AI Coding Agents for QA: Part 1 โ€” What They Are and Why It Matters
AI is everywhere, and it's easy to feel overwhelmed. Codex. Claude Code. Cursor. Windsurf. Copilot. New names every week, new hype every day. But they all describe the same concept: AI coding agents. โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€ ๐–๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ˆ๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐€๐ˆ ๐‚๐จ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐€๐ ๐ž๐ง๐ญ? Simple: it's a tool that interacts with AI and generates code. That's it. But like any tool in a QA engineer's kit, not all of them are equal. Some are great for specific tasks, some are poor at most things, and some are solid generalists you can use anywhere and get good results. I spent over $3,000 testing them so you don't have to. In this series of posts I'll share exactly what I found. Today, we start with the fundamentals. โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€ ๐Ÿง  ๐–๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐ˆ๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐‹๐‹๐Œ? LLM stands for Large Language Model, the brain powering every AI coding agent. But here's the key thing to understand: you never talk to the LLM directly. There's always a tool sitting in between: โ–บ YOU โ–บ Tool (Cursor / Copilot / Claude Code) โ–บ LLM (GPT-5 / Claude / Gemini) The same pattern applies when you use AI chat apps, except the interface is built for conversation, not code. โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€ โšก ๐–๐ก๐ฒ ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐˜๐จ๐ฎ The tool (cursor, etc) you pick is responsible for roughly 50% of your results. Here's why: the tool reads your code, decides what information to send to the LLM, and determines how much the AI actually understands about your project and how it can write the actual code. Different tools. Different developers. Different quality. Same LLM. Wildly different output. This is exactly why the same engineer, using the same LLM but a different tool, can get completely different results. For example, using the exact same ChatGPT LLM in Cursor versus Copilot for the same task will produce very different quality output. โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€ ๐Ÿ“Œ ๐Š๐ž๐ฒ ๐“๐š๐ค๐ž๐š๐ฐ๐š๐ฒ๐ฌ - LLM = the brain. You can't access it directly. - Tools (Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code) sit between you and the LLM. - The tool accounts for ~50% of the quality you get. - Different tools, different quality, different output even with the same LLM underneath.
AI Coding Agents for QA: Part 1 โ€” What They Are and Why It Matters
2 likes โ€ข 16d
Interesting, I was thinking that a Model is the same as a Coding Agent.
1-1 of 1
John Johns
1
3points to level up
@john-john-8186
Lead SDET, Fintech

Active 16d ago
Joined Apr 16, 2026
East
Powered by