In my previous article, I looked at SpecKit without extensions and SpecKit with extensions, trying to understand how much structure really helps when we use AI to generate code. This post is a follow-up of that work. I kept the same prompt, tools, and evaluation method, but added a third approach: BMAD (BMad Agentic Development).
From the beginning, BMAD felt different. SpecKit guides the
AI through clear workflows. BMAD, on the other hand, feels like a small virtual
team that thinks first, plans more, and then writes code. This difference shows
clearly in the output.
What impressed me most was simplicity. Even if BMAD did not
win on all linting scores, the code was much easier to read and reason about.
The Halstead cognitive metrics showed a big gap that classic linters do not
really capture. In simple words, the BMAD code is easier for a human brain.
Testing was another strong signal. BMAD produced the highest
number of tests and almost 99% coverage, while also having the smallest
codebase. Less code, more tests — that is usually a good sign.
Still, SpecKit with extensions remains very strong for
documentation and project maturity. If you think about long‑term maintenance or
enterprise readiness, extensions add real value.
Below is a small snapshot of the numbers that influenced my
conclusion:
|
Metric |
SpecKit |
SpecKit + Extensions |
BMAD |
|
Source Lines of Code |
604 |
629 |
517 |
|
Pylint Score |
9.68 |
9.32 |
8.50 |
|
Halstead Effort |
2,665 |
1,526 |
1,090 |
|
Test Count |
65 |
102 |
107 |
|
Test Coverage |
94.27% |
92.24% |
99.01% |
My takeaway so far is simple:
BMAD optimises for thinking and simplicity, while SpecKit + Extensions
optimises for structure and completeness.
Ultimately, establishing a balance between BMAD and SpecKit + Extensions is
key. Measuring the trade-offs helps determine the optimal approach for your
needs.
Comments
Post a Comment