This approach feels just "add friction to your AI usage". It seems the worst of both worlds, both hand-coded and vibe-coded. You paste your code into a chat so it can tell you what to type yourself (the codebase access rule looks optional, but the copy-paste is one way by design). Replace "chat" with "Stack Overflow" and it'll sound familiar. You don't need to paste code into a chatbox if you're going to do an AI review later anyway.

The security argument is the strongest part of the post, and I don't disagree with it, but what it buys you is the review, and a review catches what you missed, whoever typed the characters. None of the ten dogmas follow from that.

My general approach is to design beforehand, do an adversarial review with AI, socialize it with humans (if needed), generate a plan, and start working item by item. Always keeping me, the human, in the loop (not that `/loop`), going through the steps generating code. Finally, a manual review and one AI adversarial review of the feature branch in a clean context, going section by section manually and discussing anything relevant, and off you go.

Writing code by hand feels great, but even local models can generate fine code. Deterministic linters and quality checks are what keep the quality in line. You can always modify things as long as you're in the process, but at the end of the day, you'll review more than you write. We're closer to being the assembly line's inspector than the crafters we once thought we were.