aiqbench takeAI Products

This article details a practical evaluation framework where AI coding agents were used to stress-test Supabase documentation for Row Level Security, revealing critical gaps in agent-friendly guidance that could lead to data exposure. By treating documentation as executable code rather than static text, the authors demonstrate an iterative loop of testing and fixing that directly improves security posture and developer experience.

Source coveringSupabase

What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Are Supabase docs agent-friendly? We didn't know, so we checked

SupabaseAugust 1, 20265 min read

We built an eval for our Row Level Security guide, found agents were granted risky default database access, and fixed the docs until the eval passed.

Our data proves it: people aren't reading our docs. They're pointing a coding agent at them instead. Someone opens Claude Code or Cursor, says "here, set this up", and the agent does the rest. A human can usually spot what isn't right: a missing flag, a step buried in a dashboard widget. An agent treads along, unaware. Are our Supabase docs agent-friendly? Can an agent finish these tasks? Until recently, the answer was "we don't know." That's why we kicked off a project with the goal of measuring our Supabase documentation. We run agents…

Excerpt shown under the publisher's RSS terms · 94 words · full text and figures are on the publisher's site

Read at Supabase ↗Ask about this article