Perspectives Reveal Blind Spots

It is tempting to assume: if every agent is powered by the same LLM, then one agent should be able to do everything.

In practice, the advantage is not “more intelligence.” It is more angles.

When you deliberately move through different perspectives—planning, functional requirements, specification, implementation, testing, and documentation—you shine light on different parts of the problem. Each perspective has a different job, so it asks different questions:

• Planning forces sequencing and tradeoffs: what matters first, what can wait, what blocks what.
• Functional requirements force user-facing truth: what the system must do, what it must never do.
• Specification forces precision: inputs and outputs, contracts, invariants, edge cases.
• Implementation forces reality: what exists today, what will break, what is brittle.
• Testing forces falsifiability: how we know it works, how we catch regressions, what failure looks like.
• Documentation forces coherence: whether someone else (or the next model) can understand the system without reinventing it.

One perspective can feel complete while still being wrong. Requirements can sound right but be untestable. Implementation can compile but violate intent. Tests can pass but miss the real failure modes. Documentation can be polished but describe the old system.

So even with the same model, splitting work into perspectives is a multiplier: it reduces “confident gaps” by making different blind spots visible.

The insight: do not ask for autonomy alone—ask for coverage.