In reality this isn’t really a symptom of the naming conventions failing to convey intention, but rather a failure of the developer to properly decide what the intent should have been in the first place, and describe it in a (succinct) way that would give both themselves and others an easy means to confirm “does this code do what it was intended to do.”

Similarly, TDD gets you closer to solving the symptom, but that’s only as good as the tests you write and maintain, and it still falls short because, while it conveys behavioural (input/output) intent, for any reasonably complex task/function it still doesn’t describe *how* the logic that arrives at a given result should work.

Bottom line: there still aren’t any good substitutes for commenting logic, despite the prevailing consensus in the Ruby community that the code is the documentation.