<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>AgenticAI on Calyntro Blog</title><link>https://calyntro.com/blog/tags/agenticai/</link><description>Recent content in AgenticAI on Calyntro Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://calyntro.com/blog/tags/agenticai/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>AI + TDD: A Shortcut to the Goal or a Loss of Insight?</title><link>https://calyntro.com/blog/posts/ai-tdd-shortcut-or-loss-of-insight/</link><pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0200</pubDate><guid>https://calyntro.com/blog/posts/ai-tdd-shortcut-or-loss-of-insight/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Test-Driven Development has always been slightly misunderstood — even by people who practice it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The name doesn&amp;rsquo;t help. &amp;ldquo;Test-Driven&amp;rdquo; sounds like it&amp;rsquo;s primarily about tests. Coverage metrics. Regression safety. The QA team&amp;rsquo;s peace of mind. But anyone who has worked seriously with TDD, or spent time with practitioners like Emily Bache, knows that tests are almost a side effect. The real output is &lt;em&gt;understanding&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;TDD, done well, is a method for thinking your way through a problem one small step at a time. You don&amp;rsquo;t start with a complete picture of the solution. You start with the smallest possible question: &lt;em&gt;what is the simplest behavior this code should exhibit?&lt;/em&gt; You write a test for that. You make it pass. And in the process of making it pass, you learn something — about the problem, about your assumptions, about the design that is quietly trying to emerge.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>