Post #4477308

2026-07-19 08:02 UTC

@wez@social.treehouse.systems @cliffle@hachyderm.io this largely matches my experiences as well. What I see most is that the same folks who get something working and try to ship it without cleaning it up for review are the ones who don't review the LLM output either. Overall I see code reviewers being overwhelmed with more time consuming reviews which doesn't seem to have a great solution

Replies (1)

@cliffle@hachyderm.io 2026-07-19 15:38

@mxshift@social.treehouse.systems @wez@social.treehouse.systems and it doesn't help, IMO, that code review has never been the fun part. It's way more cognitively draining, at least for me, to pick over code with a fine toothed comb looking for issues, instead of creating something. This is why I like review systems that emphasize trust and accountability -- like, "oh, Rick wrote this, I'm going to check that it reads well and make sure I don't see a much simpler option, but I don't need to go full Reflections On Trusting Trust." But without a person, I don't know how to achieve trust and accountability, so every review has to be on max settings.

Open ##4477309