If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents

(www.seangoedecke.com)

192 points imasl42 | 2 comments | 20 Sep 25 04:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

its-kostya ◴[20 Sep 25 09:35 UTC] No.45311805[source]▶

Code review is part of the job, but one of the least enjoyable parts. Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. AI tools are helpful, but inherently increases the amount of code we have to review with more scrutiny than my colleagues because of how unpredictable - yet convincing - it can be. Why did we create tools that do the fun part and increase the non-fun part? Where are the "code-review" agents at?

replies(9): >>45311852 #>>45311876 #>>45311926 #>>45312027 #>>45312147 #>>45312307 #>>45312348 #>>45312499 #>>45362757 #

1. cmrdporcupine ◴[20 Sep 25 09:45 UTC] No.45311852[source]▶

>>45311805 #

If you have a paid Copilot membership and a Github project you can request a code review from Copilot. And it doesn't do a terrible job, actually.

replies(1): >>45311945 #

2. sublinear ◴[20 Sep 25 10:02 UTC] No.45311945[source]▶

>>45311852 (TP) #

I will second this. I believe code review agents and search summaries are the way forward for coding with LLMs.

The ability to ignore AI and focus on solving the problems has little to do with "fun". If anything it leaves a human-auditable trail to review later and hold accountable devs who have gone off the rails and routinely ignored the sometimes genuinely good advice that comes out of AI.

If humans don't have to helicopter over developers, that's a much bigger productivity boost than letting AI take the wheel. This is a nuance missed by almost everyone who doesn't write code or care about its quality.

↑