If you merely know how to check, would you also know how to fix it after you find that it's wrong?

If you are lucky to have the LLM fix it for you, great. If you don't know how to fix it yourself and the LLM doesn't either, you've just wasted a lot of time.

It did fix it, I iterated passing in the type and linter errors until it passed all the requirements I had.

> If you merely know how to check, would you also know how to fix it after you find that it's wrong?

Probably? I'm capable of reading documentation, learning and asking others.

> If you don't know how to fix it yourself and the LLM doesn't either, you've just wasted a lot of time.

You may be surprised by how little time, but regardless it would have taken more time to hit that point without the tool.

Also sometimes things don't work out, that's OK. As long as overall it improves work, that's all we need.

If you don't understand what the generic is doing, there might be edge-cases you don't appreciate. I think Typescript types are fairly non-essential so it doesn't really matter, but for more important business logic it definitely can make a difference.

I understand what it's doing, and could easily set out the cases I needed.

If you understand what it is doing, you could do it yourself, surely?

Have you never understood the solution to a puzzle much more easily than solving it yourself? I feel there's literally a huge branch of mathematics dedicated to the difference between finding and validating a solution.

More specifically, I didn't know how to solve it, though obviously could have spent much more time and learned. There were only a small number of possible cases, but I needed certain ones to work and others not to. I was easily able to create the examples but not find the solution. With looping through claude I could solve it in a few minutes. I then got an explanation, could read the right relevant docs and feel satisfied that not only did everything pass the automated checks but my own reasoning.