I believe that it’s a matter of evolution. You start small and find what works fir you and the project. Then iterate and see how to remove yourself from it more.
I like your content very much, let me point this out first.
I'm not sure all aspects are covered in the approach.
For instance, controlling the agents takes a big chunk of the interest. The agentic system architecture is also big in view.
But, the way I see, more important staff is: project structure, coding best practices, testing strategies. All still deterministic. All still very tough to get agentic to do it right.
I think agentic should just be means to an end: project quality and project ease of management. If not, it's just an indulgence that costs money.
And agree on the open questions. Our goal is to keep experimenting and actually figure out how we agentic coding falls short in different scenarios and how that could be solved.
For instance, on our own projects, in some cases it requires different approaches. E.g. in our core product we power-use stuff like pm2, AGENTS.md special instructions, testing strategies dogfooding our own qa-use and special claude code commands that we found work best. In other repos, we have slightly different approaches.
Still we are far from autopiloting a lot of the stuff we build. But at the same time we are getting to a point where changes are done much faster, and the agents have more of a complete toolset for their validation, which makes it easier to supervise too.
I actually wrote about this concept here if that’s something the might interest you: https://www.tarasyarema.com/blog/2026-02-18-introducing-sema...