For developers, nothing beats hands-on experience. So here’s a mind map showing what an author did when specifying requirements — and what they found as a result.
Kiro’s Hands-On Experience
1. Scenario 1: Return Type Clarification
1.1. Author’s Prompt
1.1.1. „What’s the return type of this function?“
1.2. Expected
1.2.1. Just the return type
1.3. What Kiro Did
1.3.1. Gave return type
1.3.2. Explained type origin
1.3.3. Traced it to a type in another file
1.3.4. Linked explanation to the imported symbol
1.4. Value Add
1.4.1. Saved developer from digging across files
1.4.2. Demonstrated codebase awareness
2. Scenario 2: Error in Type Usage
2.1. Author’s Prompt
2.1.1. Asked Kiro to explain a type mismatch
2.2. Expected
2.2.1. Just an explanation of the error
2.3. What Kiro Did
2.3.1. Identified root cause
2.3.2. Suggested code correction
2.3.3. Provided reasoning for suggestion
2.3.4. Highlighted implication on other modules
2.4. Value Add
2.4.1. Demonstrated static analysis-like capabilities
2.4.2. Reduced debugging time
3. Scenario 3: Custom Hook Navigation
3.1. Author’s Prompt
3.1.1. „What does this hook do?“
3.2. Expected
3.2.1. Surface-level summary
3.3. What Kiro Did
3.3.1. Explained the hook’s purpose
3.3.2. Followed dependencies used in the hook
3.3.3. Described each of the sub-functions involved
3.3.4. Provided insight into context providers
3.4. Value Add
3.4.1. Deep dive into React architecture
3.4.2. Reconstructed mental model for the developer
4. Scenario 4: Infrastructure Question
4.1. Author’s Prompt
4.1.1. „How does this app get deployed?“
4.2. Expected
4.2.1. High-level steps or CI/CD info
4.3. What Kiro Did
4.3.1. Located deployment scripts
4.3.2. Parsed GitHub Actions YAML
4.3.3. Explained Docker setup
4.3.4. Described interaction with AWS
4.4. Value Add
4.4.1. Unified frontend, infra, and DevOps understanding
4.4.2. Helped map full deployment path
5. Scenario 5: Module Refactor Help
5.1. Author’s Prompt
5.1.1. Requested help renaming and refactoring a module
5.2. Expected
5.2.1. Just rename functions or variables
5.3. What Kiro Did
5.3.1. Suggested file restructuring
5.3.2. Identified tight coupling
5.3.3. Proposed more modular architecture
5.3.4. Explained pros/cons of the new structure
5.4. Value Add
5.4.1. Functioned like a junior architect
5.4.2. Encouraged long-term maintainability
6. Scenario 6: Missing Tests
6.1. Author’s Prompt
6.1.1. „Are there any tests for this component?“
6.2. Expected
6.2.1. Yes/No answer or test file location
6.3. What Kiro Did
6.3.1. Analyzed nearby test files
6.3.2. Pointed out lack of direct coverage
6.3.3. Suggested what should be tested
6.3.4. Offered Jest code snippet examples
6.4. Value Add
6.4.1. Boosted test coverage awareness
6.4.2. Jumpstarted test writing
7. Summary
7.1. Pattern
7.1.1. Kiro exceeds intent of prompt
7.1.2. Anticipates developer needs
7.1.3. Connects dots across files and domains
7.2. Implication
7.2.1. More than a tool — feels like a thinking collaborator
7.3. Strength
7.3.1. Context-rich AI understanding
7.3.2. Full-project scope awareness
8. Overview
8.1. Lets see Kiro with a real-world codebase
8.2. Main observation: Kiro often exceeds what is asked
8.3. Highlights potential as a proactive AI coding assistant