> Every single time, I get something that works, yes, but then when I start self-reviewing the code, preparing to submit it to coworkers, I end up rewriting about 70% of the thing.

You might want to review how you approach these tools. Complaining that you need to rewrite 70% of the code screams of poor prompting, with too vague inputs, no constraints, and no feedback at all.

Using agents to help you write code is far from a one-shot task, but if throwing out 70% of what you create screams out that you are prompting the agent to create crap.

> 1) I'm not good at prompting, even though I am one of the earliest AI in coding adopters I know, and have been consistent for years. So I find this hard to accept.

I think you need to take a humble pill, review how you are putting together these prompts, figure out what you are doing wrong in prompts and processes, and work up from where you are at this point. If 70% of your output is crap, the problem is in your input.

I recommend you spend 20 minutes with your agent of choice prompting it to help you improve your prompts. Check instruction files, spec-driven approaches, context files, etc. Even a plain old README.md helps a lot. Prompt your agent to generate it for you. From there, instead of one-shot prompts try to break down a task into multiple sub steps with small deliverables. Always iterate on your instruction files. It you spend a few minutes on this, you will quickly halve your churn rate.