A coding agent will happily hand you a 40,000 line pull request that nobody can review and that quietly does the wrong thing. Kyle Mistele's argument is that the fix is not a better prompt but a better loop, borrowed from control theory: a thermostat senses the error between where a system is and where you want it, emits a control signal, and measures again, over and over. Infrastructure as code already approximates this. The point is to design agent loops the same way, so each iteration makes a small, readable change you can actually verify, instead of one giant diff you have to trust. The working example is migrating a codebase one procedure at a time. A sensor, often just Grep or a structural search, finds the smallest unmigrated piece, a controller picks what to work on next, and an actuator agent makes the change against golden patterns defined by hand, gated by deterministic CI like a single loop iteration in CircleCI. The loop tracks its own PRs in version control, refuses to stack a new change while an earlier one is still open, and keeps improving the code incrementally, even while the team is away. Speaker info: - https://x.com/0xBlacklight - https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-mistele - https://blacklight.sh Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction: the 40,000 line PR problem 1:55 - Why more code is not the goal 3:37 - Is the generated code any good? 4:43 - Control loops from control theory 5:49 - Infrastructure as code and Ralph loops 7:06 - Applying control loops to coding 8:35 - Migrating a codebase one procedure at a time 10:40 - Tracking the loop in version control 12:35 - The actuator agent and golden patterns 13:51 - Wiring the loop into CI 15:44 - Avoiding stacked PRs and scaling the controller