-3
Code review is dead, long live code review
(evnm.substack.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
-3 points (36.4% liked)
Programming
24789 readers
283 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This puts far too much control on the LLMs. A LLM can provide suggestions for a PR, but those suggestions are not a sufficient replacement for a real review.
If the rate of PRs is too high to review, the solution isn't to sacrifice the reviews. It's to ensure that the PRs are of sufficiently high quality that the reviews are quick. Small PRs are faster to review, and readable code is easier to review. Tests can validate correctness to the reviewer. Make the review process as easy as possible for a proper code review.
The hybrid approach seems to me like it'd be the most successful here. Generate your PR suggestions, and let the PR owner resolve them how they like. Then, do a proper review on the PR. Where I disagree with the author here is the reviewer shouldn't review the suggestions and resolutions, but the final diff instead.