AI coding tools are good at text manipulation. They’re bad at knowing when they’re wrong.
I watched Claude Code “fix” a Laravel service four times in a row. Each fix looked correct. Each fix passed static analysis. Each fix broke something else.
The root cause was simple: the AI was calling a method that didn’t exist on the model. $domain->database() instead of DomainDatabaseService::getConnection($domain).
How did this slip through?
The AI never ran the code.
It edited files. It read documentation. It updated tests. It declared the fix complete. But it never actually executed BounceRateService::getForPages() to see if it worked.
When I finally ran it in tinker, the error was immediate: BadMethodCallException: database() doesn't exist.
30 seconds to find. 4 deployments wasted chasing symptoms.
Why this happens
AI tools treat code as text. They pattern-match against what they’ve seen. They assume methods exist because similar patterns exist elsewhere.
Static analysis didn’t catch it either. The error was already in PHPStan’s baseline, explicitly suppressed. This is the same failure mode as trusting docs that were never verified against the actual system: the tool reports green, the bug runs fine.
The verification step that should have happened:
php artisan tinker --execute="BounceRateService::getForPages(\$domain, \$cutoff);"One command. Immediate failure. Obvious fix.
The rule
Don’t trust AI fixes until you’ve run the actual code path.
Not “the tests pass.” Not “it looks right.” Not “static analysis is clean.”
AI can write code fast. But it can’t tell you if that code actually works. That’s still your job.
The checklist
After any AI-assisted fix to a service, model, or controller:
tail -20 storage/logs/laravel.log | grep -i errorIf you skip these, you’re not using AI to code faster. You’re using AI to create bugs faster.
The takeaway
AI tools are fast. They’re also confident, and confidence without verification is how four deployments disappear chasing symptoms instead of causes.
The fix isn’t better prompts. It’s your own verification habit, applied every time, regardless of how plausible the fix looks. Build that into your process, not your memory. That’s the difference between a skill that guides judgment and a script that enforces it.
Related:
- Audit Before You Spread the Mess: find structural problems before they multiply
- Remediation: Fix It Once, Fix It Right: the order that works for fixing codebases
- Why Claude Code Keeps Saying “Next Session”: when Claude’s defaults need a global override