TL;DR
Coding agents are sold as a way to do more with less experience. The opposite is true. The biggest speedups go to senior engineers, because judgment is what gives the agent the right guardrails, steers it back when it takes a wrong turn, and keeps the code cheap to own. A junior's fast first version bills its real cost later. Agents multiply experience rather than replace it. The best results come where experience meets a passion for agentic engineering.
Coding deliver real speed, and it is worth saying so plainly. Point one at a well-scoped task and working code comes back fast. A junior can ship a running first version; even someone who has never called themselves an engineer can get something that runs. That part of the promise is real.
Only someone with enough experience can see when the agent heads the wrong way or makes a bad call, and correct it.
#pays out on judgment, and judgment is what experience buys. Where the work suits an agent, a senior works many times faster with one than without, measured in tasks finished and reviewed, not lines generated. That is what I see in my own work; how large the factor is depends on the task. It is judgment that gets the full gain: knowing which work is safe to delegate, and what it costs when a wrong call only shows up after the code is written, in review or in production. Give the same agent to a junior and they get far less out of it. Nobody can correct a wrong turn they cannot see.
A fast first version is cheap to produce and expensive to own.
#The bill arrives late, and it arrives as risk: an architecture that does not scale, discovered once the load is there; security gaps that leak data and take the company's reputation with them; code too unstable for the people using it to rely on. Professional engineering has run on the same patterns for twenty to thirty years: clean structure, modularity, and security and cross-cutting concerns considered from the start. None of them stopped mattering because an agent is doing the typing. They are what holds the lifetime cost down, and they are what experience brings to the agent.
The risk depends on your role. If you write the code, especially early in a career, you end up answerable for output you cannot judge. If you lead the team, you risk losing the very seniors who make coding agents pay off, and the team pays for it later. If you run the business, the tempting trade is expensive experience for cheaper people with coding agents: cheaper in the short term, more expensive over the life of the product.
The gain is real, but it needs a fit task and an expert with a passion for agentic engineering.
#Seniority does not make an agent good at work it is bad at. A senior who refuses to engage forfeits the gain as surely as a junior who cannot steer. A skeptic who sees only the agent's mistakes gives up early; someone with a passion for it sticks with it and learns to steer it. How much the agent then gives is down to experience.
Keep exploring