I agree, and I think intent behind the code is the most important part in missing context. You can sometimes infer intent from code, but usually code is a snapshot of an expression of an evolving intent.
I've started making sure my codebase is "LLM compatible". This means everything has documentation and the reasons for doing things a certain way and not another are documented in code. Funnily enough i do this documentation work with LLMs.
Eg. "Refactor this large file into meaningful smaller components where appropriate and add code documentation on what each small component is intended to achieve." The LLM can usually handle this well (with some oversight of course). I also have instructions to document each change and why in code in the LLMs instructions.md
If the LLM does create a regression i also ask the LLM to add code documentation in the code to avoid future regressions, "Important: do not do X here as it will break Y" which again seems to help since the LLM will see that next time right there in the portion of code where it's important.
None of this verbosity in the code itself is harmful to human readers either which is nice. The end result is the codebase becomes much easier for LLMs to work with.
I suspect LLM compatibility may be a metric we measure codebases in the future as we learn more and more how to work with them. Right now LLMs themselves often create very poor LLM compatible code but by adding some more documentation in the code itself they can do much better.
I've started making sure my codebase is "LLM compatible". This means everything has documentation and the reasons for doing things a certain way and not another are documented in code. Funnily enough i do this documentation work with LLMs.
Eg. "Refactor this large file into meaningful smaller components where appropriate and add code documentation on what each small component is intended to achieve." The LLM can usually handle this well (with some oversight of course). I also have instructions to document each change and why in code in the LLMs instructions.md
If the LLM does create a regression i also ask the LLM to add code documentation in the code to avoid future regressions, "Important: do not do X here as it will break Y" which again seems to help since the LLM will see that next time right there in the portion of code where it's important.
None of this verbosity in the code itself is harmful to human readers either which is nice. The end result is the codebase becomes much easier for LLMs to work with.
I suspect LLM compatibility may be a metric we measure codebases in the future as we learn more and more how to work with them. Right now LLMs themselves often create very poor LLM compatible code but by adding some more documentation in the code itself they can do much better.