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

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?

> Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction.

Not me. I enjoy figuring out the requirements, the high-level design, and the clever approach that will yield high performance, or reuse of existing libraries, or whatever it is that will make it an elegant solution.

Once I've figured all that out, the actual process of writing code is a total slog. Tracking variables, remembering syntax, trying to think through every edge case, avoiding off-by-one errors. I've gone from being an architect (fun) to slapping bricks together with mortar (boring).

I'm infinitely happier if all that can be done for me, everything is broken out into testable units, the code looks plausibly correct, and the unit tests for each function cover all cases and are demonstrably correct.

You don't really know if the system design you've architected in your mind is any good though, do you, until you've actually tried coding it. Discovering all the little edge cases at that point is hard work ("a total slog") because it's where you find out where the flaws in your thinking were, and how your beautifully imagined abstractions fall down.

Then after going back and forth between thinking about it and trying to build it a few times, after a while you discover the real solution.

Or at least that's how it's worked for me for a few decades, everyone might be different.