The post touches on my biggest pet peeves about how many software engineers currently use AI at work: they ask it to "write out a problems.md file describing the problem we want to solve" then lob the output over the fence for the rest of the engineering org to review, often times without even disclosing they used AI to generate it (it's, of course, obvious).
AI can not do the reasoning for us; thinking that because it is great at writing code that works, the same applies to documents whose primary purpose is to demonstrate critical thinking, explore trade-offs, and reason through a problem is absurd.
In fact (or IMO?), this "problems.md" document is entirely unnecessary. In many cases, simply describing the issue and providing the relevant context is enough for AI to come up with a working solution.
AI can not do critical thinking (yet), so don't ask it to (and stop sending your fellow software engineers AI-slop RFCs).
This is actually the first time I've told an agent to write out a "problems.md" document - it was an experiment to see if stating the problem provided decent results, as opposed to working directly on a spec.
It did seem to work well though. I was outsourcing as much judgement as possible to the model, and the model did a good job at making decisions that got me to my required end result.
In this case, the AI could do the reasoning for me. Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.2 are really good!