What you’ve described solves a different problem. You’ve put a lot of effort into making sure generated code conforms to your standards. That’s all good.

But do the people still understand what the system is doing and why?

You can have code that perfectly follows every standard and passes every test while gradually building a system nobody has a mental model of.

> an engineer only has to take a cursory look at the code

If that means you’ve automated away checking syntax and implementation, great. But we already had that before. If it means nobody needs to understand the change anymore, then this is exactly the risk I'm talking about in the article.