I believe code review is important (the article articulates some of the reasons) but I have to admit, having different models review a PR before passing to a human has proven valuable.
I agree that using LLMs to review code can be valuable, but I think the submitter should perform this review (or you could automate it) and then once the submitter has fully finished the feature and believes it's ready it should be reviewed by another human.
I'm not interested in being a middle man between Claude and my colleague, nor am I interested in using a colleague as a middle man between myself and Claude.
I believe code review is important (the article articulates some of the reasons) but I have to admit, having different models review a PR before passing to a human has proven valuable.
I agree that using LLMs to review code can be valuable, but I think the submitter should perform this review (or you could automate it) and then once the submitter has fully finished the feature and believes it's ready it should be reviewed by another human.
I'm not interested in being a middle man between Claude and my colleague, nor am I interested in using a colleague as a middle man between myself and Claude.
Absolutely! That’s what I meant by “before passing to a human”.