Code is clay now: agentic coding has collapsed the cost of change

Code is clay now: agentic coding has collapsed the cost of change

Before agentic coding, changing code meant demolition and scaffolding; now it is malleable, like clay. Alberto Denia describes two emerging workflows: the artisan, who stays in the loop and applies judgment to every iteration, and the factory, which builds pipelines of specs, generators, and verifiers that escalate to humans only as a last resort. Both still depend on human taste and architecture, and most real workflows will mix them.

Making a change might be nearly free now, but knowing whether it's the right change isn't.
  1. albertodenia

    Author here. No analogy is perfect, but this is how working with code has felt for me for a while, so I wanted to write down my thoughts about it.

    I wrote this a couple of months ago, and everything moves so fast nowadays that the concept of factories is already being blurred as harnesses get better and require less tooling around them. I still think that the distinction between wanting to be in the loop vs automated out from it holds up, though.

    There are other interesting aspects of malleable code that I don't explore in the article, for example:

    - Ownership. People feel less attached to their code, which has both good and bad consequences (e.g. fewer ego battles but less accountability).

    - Malleable software that adapt to users. Huge topic, many interesting questions to explore.

    - Assets in code. Things like (some) 3D graphics and animations can now be done entirely in code. Before they were very tedious to code and tweak.

    - Collaboration dynamics. Instead of high-frequency alignment (discussions, meetings) to make sure every detail is clear before the implementation, it might be more efficient to go ahead with educated guesses and align later over a working build.

  2. teleforce

    Very apt comparison and analogy.

    Fun facts, Abrahamic religions that are based on the Bible and Quran both claiming human are made from clay [1],[2].

    In Hebrew name Adam, the very first human, comes from the word adamah, which means "ground," "soil," or "red clay".

    In Arabic Adam, comes from the word adeem, means the surface of the earth or dust, reflecting the Islamic and Abrahamic tradition that Adam was created from the clay or dust of the ground.

    By extension in Hebrew and Arabic the word Adam also means mankind and humanity.

    [1] Genesis 2:7:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%3A7...

    [2] Quran 7:12:

    https://quran.com/al-araf/12

  3. jameskilton

    Code always was, it's supposed to be malleable. It's why it's long been said that code is a liability, not an asset. It's the data you generate with that code that's your asset. You can always rewrite the code.

    We, in general, are just very bad at letting code ossify, or for this metaphor, dry out and crumble. AI does not solve this problem and I fully expect to see situations where AI generated code becomes so hard to work with that even LLMs prefer to throw it away and start fresh again.

More from this day

2026-10-19