Devin AI: First AI Software Engineer - Can It Really Code Independently?

Cognition Labs released Devin - “the first AI software engineer.” Claims it can plan, code, test, and deploy independently. I got early access and tested it on 10 real tasks.

Results: Impressive for simple tasks, struggles with complexity. Here’s the honest assessment.

What is Devin?

Unlike Copilot (code completion) or ChatGPT (chat), Devin is an autonomous agent:

Capabilities:

Plans implementation
Writes code across multiple files
Runs tests
Debugs errors
Uses command line
Browses documentation
Deploys code

Interface: Web-based IDE with chat

Test 1: Simple Bug Fix

Task: “Fix the login bug where users can’t login with email containing +”

Devin’s Process:

1. Analyzing codebase...
   - Found auth/login.py
   - Identified email validation regex

2. Root cause: Regex doesn't allow + character
   - Current: ^[a-zA-Z0-9._-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$
   - Issue: Missing + in allowed characters

3. Implementing fix...
   - Updated regex to include +
   - Added test case

4. Running tests...
   - All tests passing ✓

5. Creating PR...
   - PR #123 created

Time: 8 minutes Result: ✅ Perfect fix Human review: Approved without changes

Test 2: Add New Feature

Task: “Add password reset functionality with email verification”

Devin’s Plan:

Implementation Plan:
1. Create password reset endpoint
2. Generate secure reset tokens
3. Send email with reset link
4. Create reset password page
5. Add token validation
6. Update password in database
7. Add tests

Estimated time: 45 minutes

Execution:

# Devin generated:

# backend/routes/auth.py
@app.route('/api/auth/reset-password-request', methods=['POST'])
def request_password_reset():
    email = request.json.get('email')
    user = User.query.filter_by(email=email).first()
    
    if not user:
        # Don't reveal if email exists
        return jsonify({"message": "If email exists, reset link sent"}), 200
    
    # Generate secure token
    token = secrets.token_urlsafe(32)
    expiry = datetime.utcnow() + timedelta(hours=1)
    
    # Store token
    reset_token = PasswordResetToken(
        user_id=user.id,
        token=token,
        expiry=expiry
    )
    db.session.add(reset_token)
    db.session.commit()
    
    # Send email
    send_reset_email(user.email, token)
    
    return jsonify({"message": "If email exists, reset link sent"}), 200

@app.route('/api/auth/reset-password', methods=['POST'])
def reset_password():
    token = request.json.get('token')
    new_password = request.json.get('password')
    
    # Validate token
    reset_token = PasswordResetToken.query.filter_by(
        token=token,
        used=False
    ).first()
    
    if not reset_token or reset_token.expiry < datetime.utcnow():
        return jsonify({"error": "Invalid or expired token"}), 400
    
    # Update password
    user = User.query.get(reset_token.user_id)
    user.password_hash = bcrypt.generate_password_hash(new_password)
    
    # Mark token as used
    reset_token.used = True
    db.session.commit()
    
    return jsonify({"message": "Password reset successful"}), 200

# frontend/pages/ResetPassword.tsx
// ... complete React component

# tests/test_password_reset.py
// ... comprehensive tests

Time: 52 minutes Result: ✅ Mostly correct Issues Found:

Missing rate limiting (I added)
Email template was basic (I improved)

Human review: 90% good, 10% improvements needed

Test 3: Complex Refactoring

Task: “Refactor user service to use dependency injection”

Devin’s Attempt:

1. Analyzing current architecture...
   - UserService has hard-coded dependencies
   - Database and email service directly instantiated

2. Planning refactoring...
   - Create interfaces for dependencies
   - Update UserService constructor
   - Update all call sites
   - Maintain backward compatibility

3. Implementing...
   [Started making changes]

4. Error: Tests failing
   - 15 test failures
   - Debugging...

5. Fixed 10 failures
   - 5 still failing
   - Stuck on circular dependency issue

Time: 2 hours (then gave up) Result: ❌ Failed Issue: Couldn’t resolve complex dependency issues

Human intervention: I finished the refactoring manually

Test 4: Deploy to Production

Task: “Deploy the password reset feature to production”

Devin’s Process:

1. Running tests...
   ✓ All tests passing

2. Building application...
   ✓ Build successful

3. Checking deployment config...
   - Found Dockerfile
   - Found kubernetes manifests

4. Deploying...
   $ docker build -t app:v1.2.0 .
   $ docker push registry.example.com/app:v1.2.0
   $ kubectl apply -f k8s/deployment.yaml
   
5. Verifying deployment...
   ✓ Pods running
   ✓ Health check passing

6. Running smoke tests...
   ✓ All smoke tests passing

Deployment successful!

Time: 15 minutes Result: ✅ Perfect Human review: No issues

Success Rate

Tested on 10 tasks:

Task Type	Success	Partial	Failed
Bug fixes (3)	3	0	0
Simple features (3)	2	1	0
Complex features (2)	0	1	1
Refactoring (1)	0	0	1
Deployment (1)	1	0	0
Total	6	2	2

Overall: 60% fully successful, 20% partial, 20% failed

Strengths

1. Great at Standard Tasks:

CRUD operations
Bug fixes
API endpoints
Database migrations
Deployment

2. Good Planning:

Breaks down tasks
Identifies dependencies
Estimates time

3. Self-Debugging:

Runs tests automatically
Fixes simple errors
Iterates on failures

4. Documentation:

Reads docs when stuck
Searches Stack Overflow
Learns from examples

Weaknesses

1. Struggles with Complexity:

Complex refactoring
Novel algorithms
Architectural decisions

2. Context Limitations:

Large codebases (>100 files)
Complex dependencies
Legacy code

3. No Business Judgment:

Can’t make product decisions
Doesn’t understand user needs
No UX intuition

4. Expensive:

$500/month (early access pricing)
vs Junior developer: $5,000/month
But junior is more capable

Comparison with Alternatives

Devin vs GitHub Copilot:

Feature	Devin	Copilot	Winner
Autonomy	High	Low	Devin
Code quality	Good	Good	Tie
Complex tasks	Struggles	N/A	-
Price	$500/mo	$10/mo	Copilot
Use case	Full tasks	Completion	Different

Devin vs Junior Developer:

Aspect	Devin	Junior Dev	Winner
Simple tasks	Fast	Slower	Devin
Complex tasks	Fails	Succeeds	Junior
Learning	No	Yes	Junior
Cost	$500/mo	$5,000/mo	Devin
Availability	24/7	40hr/week	Devin

Practical Use Cases

Good For:

Bug fixes
Simple features
Repetitive tasks
Deployment automation
Test generation

Not Good For:

Architecture design
Complex refactoring
Novel algorithms
Product decisions
Team collaboration

Real-World Workflow

How I actually use Devin:

1. Assign simple, well-defined tasks to Devin
   - Bug fixes
   - CRUD endpoints
   - Tests

2. Review Devin's work (always!)
   - Check code quality
   - Verify tests
   - Test manually

3. Handle complex tasks myself
   - Architecture
   - Complex features
   - Critical bugs

4. Use Devin for automation
   - Deployments
   - Migrations
   - Routine maintenance

Time saved: ~30% on routine tasks

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Monthly Cost: $500

Value Delivered:

Saves ~40 hours/month on routine tasks
At $100/hour = $4,000 value

ROI: 800%

But: Only if you have enough routine tasks

Future Potential

Current State (March 2024):

Good for simple tasks
Struggles with complexity
Requires supervision

6 Months:

Better at complex tasks
Larger context window
More reliable

1 Year:

Junior developer level
Can handle most tasks
Still needs review

2 Years:

Mid-level developer level?
Architectural capabilities?
Team collaboration?

Ethical Considerations

Job Impact:

Will it replace junior developers? Not yet
Will it reduce hiring? Possibly
Will it change the role? Definitely

My Take:

Augmentation, not replacement
Developers become more productive
Focus shifts to higher-level work

Lessons Learned

Great for routine work - Frees up human time
Always review - Don’t deploy blindly
Not a replacement - Augmentation tool
Best for well-defined tasks - Clear requirements
Expensive but valuable - If used correctly

Conclusion

Devin is impressive but not revolutionary. Good for routine tasks, struggles with complexity. Not ready to replace developers, but valuable as an assistant.

Current Verdict:

60% success rate on real tasks
Great for simple, well-defined work
Struggles with complexity
Requires human supervision

Best Uses:

Bug fixes
Simple features
Deployment automation
Test generation
Routine maintenance

Wait For:

Better complex task handling
Lower pricing
Larger context window
More reliability

Key takeaways:

First truly autonomous coding AI
60% success rate on real tasks
Great for routine work
Not ready to replace developers
Valuable as productivity tool

Devin is the future, but the future is still being built.

Table of Contents