Comment by refactor_master
1 day ago
In my experience, automated code review is more pointless than ever.
We have all the linters, tests, and AI writing code for us. I don’t need the left hand to tell the right hand it did a good job. I’m very certain my code runs when I push the PR.
What I need now is architectural, long-horizon and business perspective.
For those of us who do utilize the pre-existing tools and the coding agents effectively, yeah automated code reviews eventually become redundant. But they're still around because there are a lot of devs who don't even glance at what the agents are writing for them. Maybe partly because they don't care to streamline their workflow, or maybe because they've never been particularly good at writing code, and don't actually understand what the agent is giving them.
Lately I've seen some pretty glaringly obvious issues caught during the preliminary automated code review, and the issues seem to be coming from individuals who don't actually understand what the code is doing.
For the rest of us who are actually using the whole stack effectively, the automated code review is essentially a CI gate to protect the repo from the devs who don't know what they're doing.
> But they're still around because there are a lot of devs who don't even glance at what the agents are writing for them
But how does automated AI code review help, here? Doesn’t it just reinforce that they don’t need to look at it (or change their habits), because the AI review will catch the issues?
What kind of code review tools did you try?
> What I need now is architectural, long-horizon and business perspective.
That's exactly what these tools are now good at. They have a huge gap when fixing these issues properly but they can spot these issues no problem
No, no they can’t. I use AI a lot and I get a lot of value from it but they are still terrible at programming “in the large”, by which I mean slotting features into the place meant for them in the existing code base. When coding and reviewing their view is too local. They will implement a change in the first place that looks feasible when coding. When reviewing they will not look for code duplication or fit. They will review for correctness, performance, security and style but not for architectural coherence.
They also have shockingly weak ability to identify business acceptance criteria that are completely missing in the implementation or test coverage.
Thing is most human developers also fit that description, so they don't see the problem.
[flagged]