←back to thread

192 points imasl42 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
its-kostya ◴[] 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 #
simonw ◴[] No.45311926[source]
> Where are the "code-review" agents at?

OpenAI's Codex Cloud just added a new feature for code review, and their new GPT-5-Codex model has been specifically trained for code review: https://openai.com/index/introducing-upgrades-to-codex/

Gemini and Claude both have code review features that work via GitHub Actions: https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review... and https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/github-actions

GitHub have their own version of this pattern too: https://github.blog/changelog/2025-04-04-copilot-code-review...

There are also a whole lot of dedicated code review startups like https://coderabbit.ai/ and https://www.greptile.com/ and https://www.qodo.ai/products/qodo-merge/

replies(1): >>45311984 #
vrighter ◴[] No.45311984[source]
you can't use a system with the exact same hallucination problem to check the work of another one just like it. Snake oil
replies(4): >>45312016 #>>45312370 #>>45313235 #>>45319240 #
1. simonw ◴[] No.45312370[source]
It's snake oil that works surprisingly well.