<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Software Quality on Andreas Nissen</title><link>https://andreasnissen.dev/tags/software-quality/</link><description>Recent content in Software Quality on Andreas Nissen</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>© Andreas Nissen</copyright><lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://andreasnissen.dev/tags/software-quality/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>How I Review AI-Built Public Work Without Outsourcing Judgment</title><link>https://andreasnissen.dev/writing/reviewing-ai-built-public-work/</link><pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://andreasnissen.dev/writing/reviewing-ai-built-public-work/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;AI can write code, propose tests, inspect a diff, and help draft documentation. It cannot own the public claim I attach to the result.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;That claim remains mine: what the project is for, which architecture I accept, what evidence is sufficient, which risks remain, and whether the work is ready to publish.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;This distinction matters more as agents complete larger parts of a software change.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;h2 id="start-with-the-claim-the-project-must-support"&gt;Start with the claim the project must support&lt;/h2&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;Before implementation, I define the shortest sentence a skeptical reviewer should be able to verify.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>