Reviewing in the Age of AI

How are you guys ensuring that the code that goes into production is high quality now that the time to review code is significantly greater than the time to generate it.

There is a huge asymmetry between who is generating the code and who is reviewing it, making the review process even more painful than it used to be.

Wondering whether if instead of reviewing PRs, we should instead move towards reviewing plans so that no code is generated before at least another person approves the plan.

Once the code is generated, the users who contributed to the plan can still review it but the fact that both participated in the plan should help reduce the asymmetry.

Feels like we need a way to collaborate and iterate on plans. Would love your thoughts on this.

7 points | by maxalbarello 11 hours ago

4 comments

  • MatrixOrigin 1 hour ago
    you've identified a real structural probiem with how most teams are still operating.And we're working on it.
  • taeshdas 11 hours ago
    In these times i would argue on probably getting the code reviewed by an ai agent which has been specifically trained on code quality, robustness and company or product specific code practices, that reduces the loan on manual reviewing by a large margin
    [-]
    • maxalbarello 10 hours ago
      that definitely helps but i'm wondering if that whole process (via an agent or via a human teammate) should be performed at the plan stage instead of the review stage. this should reduce the back and forth after the pr is opened (avoiding the delays and costs of running the CI several times)
  • ilbert 11 hours ago
    In the last couple of companies I've worked in, I've felt both overwhelmed by PRs to review and disappointed by my teammates that were just rubber-stamping my PRs
    [-]
    • maxalbarello 10 hours ago
      wondering if the problem is the teammates rubber-stamping or the tool/workflow being outdated
  • nodeflare 11 hours ago
    [flagged]