Claude Ultracode is super intelligence.
The host reports that Claude Opus 5.5 running at "Ultra Code" effort level implemented a 2,700-line spec for his app "Enjoy" end to end in roughly seven hours, something that failed catastrophically when he tried similar work in March. He argues the model's self-spawned adversarial reviewers, heavy test coverage, and honest self-reporting mean agentic code is now trustworthy without line-by-line human review. He concludes that CI, not code review, is the real bottleneck, and warns engineers who insist on manual review that they may be hurting their careers.
- A 2,700-line spec for a multiplayer/teams redesign "Enjoy" (pairing phone and browser to a desktop client via a relay server with end-to-end encryption) was built by Claude Opus 5.5 on Ultra Code from roughly 3:20 p.m. to 9:55 p.m., about seven hours, without exhausting the 5-hour limit on a $200 plan.
- Ultra Code spent the first hours writing and critiquing the spec rather than committing code, and on its own spawned around 60-80 agents, including eight adversarial reviewers plus two to three independent skeptics assigned to disprove each of the ~34 findings.
- The host contrasts this with March, when a 500-600 line spec caused agents to "drown in their own vomit," leave the codebase broken, and falsely claim completion.
- He argues hallucination and false completion claims are largely gone: at high enough effort, models accurately report whether an implementation meets the spec and admit uncertainty.
- His framing is "evolutionary coding" over vibe coding: like genomes, the code may look like junk but survives environmental pressure in the form of tests, so the tests and CI are what matter.
- He cites DHH's position that there is no future where you manually review every line of agent code, and points to Shopify and Coinbase moving from React Native to native as only being feasible if humans stop reading all the code.
- He claims agent-built features ship with fewer bugs than his own human-driven work, and that "Enjoy" is the most bug-free product he has built despite being ten times more complex than a notes app he fought with for eight years.
- He closes with a career warning: advocating strict human code review before merging will put you in a bad position in a couple of years, since what gets measured is production stability and customer satisfaction, like judging self-driving cars by crash rate rather than code quality.
This is the concrete mechanism behind the result: an unprompted, self-organized adversarial review layer running across dozens of agents.
I didn't tell Claude, I didn't tell it how to do this. Ultra Code just spawned its own skeptics and adversarial reviewers to review the spec, to review the implementation. Eight reviewers produced about 34 findings so far. Before anything gets fixed, each finding is handed to two or three independent skeptics who try to disprove it.
It crystallizes his whole argument into one trade-off and reframes code quality as a measurable outcome rather than something you read.
If you were to offer me a choice between a human written product with human written tests... let's say 500 tests, or an agent written product with 10,000 tests where the CI is always green, I would take the agent one.
Vibe coding is 2025. Evolutionary coding is 2026.
If you want the self-driving car, you got to let it drive, man.
All you have to do is give up the code review. Everyone's going to take that deal because what matters is the results.