- Asking Qwen to review project docs (requirements, user stories, etc) so that "we" can evaluate an iterate on an API design. Then back-and-forth chat about possible design directions. Then I ask for a rough-sketch plan of the one I'm interested in. I provide some tweaks to the plan and request a final plan in full detail. I switch to build mode and say go; everything is written to spec.
- Asking Qwen to write a suite of tests covering X, Y, Z issues with permutations A, B, C per issue.
- Asking Qwen to edit the shape of a CNN to insert auxiliary branches for intermediate supervision, and to extract out part of the network as a modular component with parameterized architecture.
I have less experience with the dense 27B because it's too slow to use on Apple Silicon. But regardless of which model you try, I would recommend trying a full-fat cloud hosted version of it first, so that you can get a sense of what it's capable of when the inference stack is correctly configured. LLMs are very sensitive to quantization formats, discrepancies in chat templates, etc. That kind of stuff is make-or-break.
The thing is, everyone has their own variant of "qwen3.6 27b" depending on the launch parameters, ranging from "SOTA in its class" to "completely broken"
But if we can believe you that it's doing what a Claude model was doing a year ago then I'd say: OMG no I really never want to go back to that level of frustration getting an agent to do what I want it to do.
While it probably won't matter enough to change your mind, remember that you've gotten better at extracting value from all models than you were a year ago - plus the harnesses and other tools have gotten a lot better too.
What could be more valuable than outputting the exact thing you asked for?