Comment by clintonb
21 hours ago
I am contemplating code review within my own organization, and the question I return to is:
> Does this organization prioritize human learning?
That has been my primary motivator for code reviews. I want to teach and learn from others, especially given the decreasing levels of collaboration due to increased AI usage.
The sad truth is that all of my feedback just goes straight to agents. Maybe 10% is reacted to by a human, so I’m left wondering if there’s any value to a real review aside from poorly training robots to do my job, and further atrophying the abilities of my team members.
Well, I can tell you that at my current job we had something of a crisis over the summer when we realized that nobody could make changes without fear of breaking things anymore because we lost the ability to tell which existing behaviors were and were not safe to change.
Previously the knowledge needed to discern that sort of thing would be disseminated through both design and code review sessions. But plan mode and AI code review largely put an end to that.
So we put our heads together and came up with some new policies about project management and how we use AI, and things have steadily getting better since then.
(Though, in fairness, the one guy who seems to actually enjoy getting paged after hours seems to be having less fun.)
What plans did you put in place? What did you do to ensure knowledge transfer?
Strict WIP limits, all non-trivial projects need two human collaborators who are both responsible for understanding and signing off on the project plan, docs, code, test strategy, etc., and regular sync-up meetings.
2 replies →
"We reinvented everything and called it a success"