By Arjun Mehta
Cursor and Copilot promise to make you more productive. They do. You ship features faster. More lines of code get written. PRs get reviewed quicker.
But they don't reduce technical debt. In fact, they often increase it.
What actually reduces debt? Discipline, standards, and refactoring time. Not AI. The math is simple. The execution is hard.
The Illusion of Speed
You're shipping 30% faster with Copilot. On the surface, this is good. More features per quarter.
But look deeper. What's the quality of those features? How much debt came with them?
Copilot generates code that works. But it doesn't understand your architecture. It doesn't know your patterns. It doesn't understand why you made certain decisions. So it generates code that's syntactically correct but architecturally inconsistent.
Code review becomes harder. The code reviewer has to check not just correctness but style consistency. Test coverage drops because tests aren't generated as fast as code. Integration complexity increases because the generated code doesn't follow your patterns.
You're shipping faster and accumulating debt faster. The debt just isn't visible yet.
What Actually Reduces Debt
1. Refactoring Discipline
Paying down debt requires:
Time allocation. You need to budget 20% of your sprints for refactoring and maintenance. If you allocate 0%, debt accumulates exponentially.
Prioritization. Which debt matters most? Not all debt is equal. Fix the debt that's costing you velocity, not the debt that looks messy.
Verification. After you refactor, did it actually help? Measure the impact. Did feature velocity improve? Did bug rates decrease?
AI tools don't help with this. They let you defer it longer by shipping more features on top of the debt.
2. Code Quality Standards
Preventing debt from forming in the first place:
Code review focused on architecture and consistency, not just correctness. "This code works but doesn't follow our patterns. Redo it."
Automated quality gates. Complexity checks, coverage gates, duplication detection. Violations block merge.
Enforcement. These aren't suggestions. They're requirements.
Consistency. Everyone follows the same patterns. When code looks the same, it's easier to understand.
AI tools make this harder. More code to review. More violations to catch. More inconsistency in what gets merged.
3. Architecture Discipline
Designing systems for simplicity:
Small, focused modules. Each module does one thing. Changes to module A don't require changes to module B.
Clear boundaries. Services talk through well-defined APIs. Not through shared databases or global state.
Minimal coupling. The system isn't a web of interdependencies. It's a directed graph of dependencies.
Easy to understand. A new engineer can read the code and understand what it does without spending weeks reverse-engineering.
AI doesn't understand architecture. It generates code that violates these principles. It creates tightly coupled modules because that's what's in the training data. It creates global state and shared databases because that's easy to code.
The Real Solution
Technical debt reduction requires:
-
Strong code review. Catch debt before merge. Make reviewers responsible for architecture, not just correctness.
-
Automated quality gates. Use tools that measure complexity, coverage, duplication. Make violations block merge.
-
Architecture review. Have someone responsible for ensuring new code doesn't violate architectural principles.
-
Refactoring allocation. Budget 20% of sprints for paying down debt. This isn't optional.
-
Knowledge sharing. Everyone understands the architecture. Use tools like Glue to make codebase structure visible to the team.
-
Measurement. Track technical debt. Measure impact of refactoring. Know whether you're improving or degrading.
AI's Actual Role
AI can help with:
Tests. Generate test cases and scaffolding. Saves time on boilerplate.
Documentation. Extract documentation from code. Keeps docs current.
Boilerplate. Generate repetitive code patterns. Saves typing.
Suggestions. "This function is complex. Consider breaking it into pieces."
AI shouldn't be used for:
Core logic. This needs human thought and architectural understanding.
Architectural decisions. Should be made by people who understand the system.
Integration points. Too complex for AI without deep system knowledge.
Refactoring decisions. Requires understanding what the code is supposed to do.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Technical debt is reduced through discipline, not tools. It requires:
Time. You have to allocate refactoring time. This is time you're not shipping features.
Culture. Your team has to value consistency and architecture, not just shipping.
Judgment. You have to decide what debt matters. Not all debt is worth paying.
Patience. Debt doesn't accumulate quickly and doesn't get paid down quickly. It's a long game.
There's no shortcut. Copilot won't fix it. Cursor won't fix it. No tool will fix it.
The companies that reduce technical debt are the ones that allocate time, enforce standards, and measure results. That's it. That's the whole secret.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we use AI for refactoring to reduce debt? Some AI tools can suggest refactoring. But they can't replace human judgment about what's truly important. Debt reduction is strategic, not tactical.
If we use AI plus strong code review, will we reduce debt? Maybe. But you're fighting upstream. You're generating code that violates your standards, then trying to review it into compliance. Better to focus on preventing debt formation, not reviewing it away.
What if we don't have time for refactoring? You will. Eventually. Either you allocate time now, or the debt allocates time for you later (as firefighting and rework). The second option is much more expensive.