Last week, a junior developer on my team asked ChatGPT to explain why we structure our API responses in a specific way. The AI gave a technically perfect answer about REST principles, data serialization, and HTTP status codes. Everything it said was correct.
It was also completely useless.
Because the real answer wasn't in the code—it was in a decision we made eighteen months ago when our mobile team reported that nested JSON objects were causing performance issues on older Android devices. The weird flat structure that confused the junior dev wasn't a REST best practice. It was a compromise born from a production incident at 2 AM.
No AI would know that. And that's the problem.
The Syntax vs Story Gap
AI tools have become remarkably good at explaining what code does. Feed Claude 3.7 Sonnet a function and it will walk you through the logic, identify edge cases, and even suggest optimizations. It understands patterns, recognizes anti-patterns, and can cite best practices with impressive accuracy.
But code doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every line you write is a small piece of a much larger story—a story shaped by deadlines, team capabilities, technical debt, business constraints, and the ghosts of decisions past.
AI sees the code. It misses the story.
When you ask an AI to explain a codebase, it gives you the architectural equivalent of describing a building by listing the materials used. "This wall is made of brick. This beam is steel. This joint uses a mortise and tenon connection." All true. All correct. All missing the point.
The real question isn't what the building is made of—it's why the architect chose brick over concrete, why the beam is oversized for the load it carries, why there's an awkward support column in the middle of what should be an open space.
Those answers live in context that AI cannot access.
The Hidden Architecture
Every codebase contains two architectures. There's the intended architecture—the clean, logical structure you'd design if you were building from scratch with perfect knowledge and unlimited time. This is what's documented in architecture diagrams and design docs, if those even exist.
Then there's the actual architecture—the messy, compromised, battle-tested structure that emerged from real-world constraints. This is the architecture that contains:
Legacy integrations that can't be refactored yet. That weird data transformation layer that feels over-engineered? It exists because the third-party API changed its response format three times in six months, and we got tired of updating every consumer.
Performance hacks that solved specific problems. That caching layer with the oddly specific TTL? It's tuned precisely to our database replication lag and peak traffic patterns. Change it and you'll rediscover why we set it that way.
Team capability compromises. That overly simple state management that seems to ignore best practices? We built it that way because half the team was new to the framework, and we needed something they could debug at 3 AM without escalating to seniors.
Business deadline tradeoffs. That duplicated code that violates DRY principles? We knew it was wrong when we wrote it, but shipping on time for the conference demo was more important than perfect architecture.
AI tools can't see any of this. They evaluate code against platonic ideals of correctness and best practices. They don't understand that sometimes the "wrong" solution is exactly right for your specific constraints.
When AI Misleads More Than It Helps
The danger isn't that AI gives wrong answers. It's that it gives confidently correct answers that ignore crucial context.
I've watched junior developers use AI to refactor "bad code" into "good code" that then broke production because they didn't understand why the bad code was written that way. The AI saw inefficiency; it didn't see the rate limiting requirements from our third-party provider. The AI saw redundancy; it didn't see the failover mechanism we built after the database incident.
AI optimizes for local correctness without understanding global constraints. It will happily suggest replacing your custom validation with a standard library, not knowing that your custom version exists specifically to handle the malformed data that one critical enterprise client sends.
AI suggests patterns that sound good but ignore your reality. It will recommend microservices architecture principles to a three-person team running on a shoestring budget. It will suggest sophisticated caching strategies without knowing your traffic is 95% writes. It will advocate for test coverage metrics without understanding your release cycle.
AI can't navigate organizational context. It doesn't know that your monorepo structure is dictated by your DevOps team's capabilities. It doesn't understand that your technology choices are constrained by your hiring market. It can't see that your architecture reflects power dynamics between product and engineering.
When you use tools like GPT-4o mini or the Code Explainer without understanding these limitations, you're not getting explanations—you're getting technically accurate hallucinations that feel true but miss the point entirely.
The Architecture Is the Scar Tissue
Good architecture isn't just logical structure—it's accumulated wisdom. Every weird pattern, every unusual constraint, every apparent inefficiency carries information about the problems the team has actually faced.
When I onboard new developers, I don't start with the architecture diagram. I start with the git blame history and the post-mortem documents. I show them the scars—the commits that start with "hotfix" or "emergency patch." I walk them through the PRs with fifty comments and three rewrites. I explain the slack threads where we debated approaches for hours before settling on something that looked obvious in retrospect.
This is the architecture that matters. Not the idealized version in the docs, but the evolved version that survived contact with production.
The weird caching layer? Added after the traffic spike that took down the site during our TechCrunch feature. The redundant validation? Built after we discovered that mobile clients were sending malformed requests that passed our API gateway but crashed our servers. The overly defensive error handling? Implemented after we spent a weekend debugging why errors weren't logging properly in our Kubernetes cluster.
Each of these decisions made perfect sense at the time. Each solved a real problem. Each would look like over-engineering or poor design to an AI analyzing the code without context.
The Questions AI Can't Answer
When you're trying to understand a codebase, the most important questions aren't about what the code does—they're about why it does it that way.
Why is this abstraction more complex than it needs to be? Maybe it's premature optimization. Or maybe it's preparing for a requirement that's coming in Q2. Or maybe it's over-engineered because the original developer was learning a new pattern. You can't know without asking.
Why do we have two similar implementations of this feature? Maybe it's technical debt that should be consolidated. Or maybe they look similar but serve different use cases with different constraints. Or maybe we're running an A/B test. Context matters.
Why isn't this following the established pattern? Maybe it's inconsistency that should be fixed. Or maybe the established pattern doesn't work for this edge case. Or maybe this was built by a contractor who didn't know the patterns. Or maybe the pattern changed and this is legacy code.
AI tools will confidently answer these questions based on code analysis alone. They'll spot the inconsistency, identify the duplication, note the deviation from best practices. What they can't do is tell you whether those things are problems or solutions.
Using AI Without Losing Context
This doesn't mean AI tools are useless for understanding code—it means you need to use them differently.
Use AI to explain the what, not the why. When you're reading unfamiliar code, use tools like Claude to understand what each piece does. But don't trust it to tell you why the code is structured that way. That requires git history, documentation, and conversations with people who were there.
Use AI to generate hypotheses, not conclusions. When an AI suggests that code is poorly designed, treat it as a hypothesis to investigate. Maybe it is poor design. Maybe it's a clever solution to a constraint the AI doesn't know about. Use tools like the Research Paper Summarizer to find documented patterns, but verify they apply to your context.
Use AI to accelerate learning, not replace understanding. When onboarding to a new codebase, AI can help you understand the mechanics faster. But you still need to talk to the team, read the commit history, and understand the business context. The AI can explain the tree structure of your database schema, but only humans can explain why that third normal form violation is actually the right choice.
Use AI as a second opinion, not the final word. When you're unsure about an architectural decision, ask an AI for perspective. But remember it's evaluating against generic best practices, not your specific constraints. Tools like Crompt let you compare responses from multiple models—useful for getting different viewpoints, but none of them will understand your production environment.
The Irreplaceable Human Context
The best architecture documentation I've ever read wasn't generated by tools—it was written by engineers who explained not just what they built, but why they built it that way, what alternatives they considered, and what constraints shaped their decisions.
These documents capture the architectural context that AI can never infer: the business pressures, the team dynamics, the technical limitations, the future plans that influenced present choices.
When senior engineers review code, they're not just checking if it works—they're evaluating if it fits the larger architectural story. They ask: Does this decision make sense given our constraints? Will future developers understand why this exists? Are we taking on technical debt consciously or accidentally?
AI can't make these judgments because they require understanding not just the code, but the organization that writes it.
The Real Skill
Understanding code architecture isn't about memorizing design patterns or identifying anti-patterns. It's about developing the ability to read between the lines—to see not just what the code does, but what problems the team was solving when they wrote it.
This is what separates developers who can join any codebase and be productive from those who need everything explained. It's not that they understand the code better—it's that they understand how to discover the context that explains the code.
They know that every architectural decision is a tradeoff, and they've learned to identify what was being traded for what. They recognize that "bad code" is often code that solved yesterday's problem, and that understanding why it solved that problem is more valuable than knowing how to refactor it.
They use AI tools to accelerate their understanding, but they don't mistake technical correctness for architectural wisdom.
The Pattern That Matters
If there's one meta-pattern to understand about codebases, it's this: architecture is frozen history. Every weird structure, every apparent inefficiency, every deviation from best practices—they all made sense to someone at some point.
Your job isn't to judge whether they were right or wrong. Your job is to understand what problem they were solving, whether that problem still exists, and whether their solution still makes sense given current constraints.
AI can help you understand the syntax. Only humans can help you understand the story.
And in the end, the story is what matters.
- ROHIT
Top comments (0)