I'd like to submit my counterpoint. I work on an established codebase building new features and fixing bugs. It has access to our story board, git and a couple of other mcps. As long as the story is well written with clear requirements and expectations it always produces quality code that I validate as a human with a variety of tests automated and manual. I peer review the code. My colleagues then peer review that too.

I have noticed two things - new features take at a minimum at least half the time it took me previously and bugs are much less frequent. Even faster when bug fixing.

My takeaway is that you need solid requirements, clear context and thoughtful human oversight primarily during planning but also during verification