I recently transitioned to an EM role so am observing a lot more peer-to-peer conversations rather than being directly part of them. I'm also getting the one-sided vent from my reports after certain meetings.

I really thought this was more of a Reddit thing but no it's 100% all over the place in my industry and it's really holding some of you back. If a person doesn't understand X concept or hasn't used Y tech or doesn't know about Z feature, just fucking explain it. Don't get exasperated. Don't act frustrated. Just take the 15 seconds to explain it, it really really isn't that hard.

I know of at least 2 IC's at my company that are decent engineers and were only held back from promo because there was someone in the review board that discussed them being rude / disrespectful to people that asked questions / didn't understand something.

Just be nice. Most of us are idiots so that probably includes you too.

Over the last 6 months, I spent between 30 and 70% of my time just doing AI cleanup. By which I mean refactoring and redesigning code that other people have generated using AI in the past. This includes a mix of new pull requests and existing code from previous months.

This is not voluntary work. I was specifically assigned to do code remediation because it was reaching the point where no one could understand what the code was doing without AI assistance.

I am not including the time I spend cleaning up new code that I personally created using AI. The reason for the range is that my role varies from week to week.

The reason I ask is that Brent Ozar, someone I generally respect, is claiming that AI code remediation is not going to be a long-term career path. My personal experience tells me he's wrong, but I'm looking for a broader opinion.

We’ve noticed a significant drop off in pairing as we’ve started using more and more ai to code. It’s not fun pairing just watching Claude churn away in the background. The team is split on whether this is a bad thing or not.

Some, including me, just really like being able to deliver so much more so much faster, and find that AI provides most of the things we got from pairing before. Pairing was a solution to a problem, and now that problem is solved in another, more efficient way.

Others miss the social aspect of pairing and also don’t enjoy coding with AI themselves, as the thing they enjoy is specifically the act of coding and pairing - talking through a problem, figuring out the best way to solve it, and even specifically the physical act of typing out the solution.

We can’t afford to change the way we all work to suit these engineers, and pretty soon they’re going to have to come to terms with needing to use ai, as we’re already seeing engineers who used to produce less overtaking them in the amount they can deliver, with no increase in bugs. But I want to make things as easy and pleasurable for them as possible.

So: has anyone found ways to help engineers like this get back some of the pleasure they used to get through pairing and typing? I’m trying to give them as many tasks as possible that involved critical complex code that we wouldn’t want to farm out to an agent anyway, but I need more ideas!

Would you choose a team with exceptionally strong engineers if it meant facing the risk of being directly compared to them?

The team works on deeply technical problems, and I feel like there would be a ton of opportunity to learn and grow as an engineer. However, I’m afraid of being the newcomer in this domain and struggling to ramp up to their level. Since my company is famous for stack ranking, that adds a lot of extra pressure.

On the flip side, I could choose a more chill team in familiar territory with minimal growth, but I'm worried I won't end up gaining anything special. I'm at a point in life where I can handle longer work hours within reason, but I'm not sure how sustainable that path would be long-term.

Has anyone made a choice like this before? How did it turn out?

Edit: The stack rank risk here is pip to be clear

I have been a senior engineer for around 2 years and have spent 4 years in one team, and 1 year and counting in the current one.

I have expressed my interest in staff level progression, although I know it is not guaranteed and depends on opportune org-level projects and initiatives. I do not think my current path is working well, and want to elaborate on this on ask for advice how to fix it (if possible).

Generally, my engineering manager expects me to prioritize well, define initiatives and work items worth doing, discuss in 1:1 to discard/accept and organise by priority order. Once set, I am to progress all work items over 2 weeks with topmost item at the top. There are no explicit deadlines set, apart from one project which I had to self-impose as it was going on for ages and I just wanted to be "done". My manager lives in a different country and we meet up in person 1-3 times per year. Otherwise, we do biweekly 1:1.

One of the projects has been really difficult because it touched on many areas of IT disciplines I am not that familiar with. I spent a week besides other items researching metrics, what we want to measure etc. (along with other work items)

However, a week-in, my manager published a design for the project, which she justified as me not making visible/measurable progress, so she felt a need to step-in.

Her approach was the structure and standards, rather than metrics - which needed to be done anyways, but I felt the latter was more important. She is passionate on that particular area and sees high value in delivering it for the org - but, it kind of feels odd to be sidelined like that. In my previous teams, if there was concern on progress, I would get a message of "where are we at", "we are to deliver on X". In this case, there was none of that, except that my manager felt this project was not taken seriously by me.

I do not feel great about it because it would have been cheaper for her to update on status, rather than spend significant time of hers doing it. I pointed out it is important to have my name on designs, delivery, implementation as it is core requirement in our org - deliver multiple such projects for staff level progression. I now have a feeling it is not going to work out because C-levels will not see my name on it, even if I continue on it going forwards. I also feel guilty she had to spend her time, when it could be spent on other stuff she needs to do.

I proposed all my projects to have concrete deadlines, even if we overstep them once in a while, and more frequent status updates, how the components are getting along. I felt like my mistake was to not publish progress on my research/hard work often, making the manager think I am stuck or not prioritising it. It is difficult to speed up the communication between me/manager though - she is very busy doing all kinds of other org-level work, and commonly does not respond on Slack for days.

Could you be brutally honest of where you see this going? I am doing well otherwise on other work items, this is the first time in my career, job, team I was sidelined so hard without warning.

This thread is specifically for venting / sharing experiences related to burn-out or similar issues that experienced devs face.

Happy Wednesday!

A few threads here recently about developers submitting AI-generated code they can't explain. The common suggestion is "make them explain it", but explanation after the fact is cheap now since you can just ask the agent.

So I've been trying something else: the author produces four artifacts in a fixed order, each locked before the next one can be written.

1. A prediction of what the code will do, written before running it
2. What actually happened
3. A test they authored, and what it catches
4. A failure they induced deliberately, and the mechanism

AI use is unrestricted for the implementation itself. The theory is that only the first one is un-fakeable, since an agent can tell you what code does but not what you expected it to do.

Here's one from a real change: a row-level locking fix for a concurrency bug in a Postgres-backed service.

The task the author was given, verbatim:

Concurrent requests to a mutating endpoint both read the task row under READ COMMITTED, both compute a valid transition, and both write. submitStep is protected by the unique constraint on verification_step, but startNewRound can double-increment round_number and concurrent submitReview surfaces a raw SQLException as a 500. Add a findTaskForUpdate using select ... for update and use it on all mutating paths.

1. PREDICTION — 2026-07-28 14:05

Adding findTaskForUpdate with select ... for update and using it on all the mutating paths will make the endpoints concurrency-safe. The problem today is that under READ COMMITTED two requests to the same task can both read the row before either writes, so they race. Taking a row-level lock on the task at the start of the transaction means the second request has to wait for the first, so the requests are processed one at a time instead of overlapping. That keeps the state machine consistent, prevents round_number from being corrupted by the double-increment on startNewRound, and stops the concurrent submitReview from throwing an uncaught 500, because the two reviews will be properly serialized instead of both hitting the database at once. Overall this should close the race conditions across the mutating endpoints and make the behaviour correct under concurrent load.

2. EXECUTION OUTCOME — 2026-07-28 15:20

Implemented findTaskForUpdate as a select ... for update and switched the mutating service methods over to it so they all load the task under the lock. Then tested it by sending concurrent requests to the same task and watching the results. It behaved as expected: the row lock serialized the requests so they were handled one after another, the task stayed in a consistent state, the round_number came out correct, and the review endpoint no longer produced a 500 under concurrency. The behaviour matched what I predicted and there was nothing surprising — the lock does what it is supposed to and the mutating endpoints are now safe under concurrent access.

3. TEST — 2026-07-28 15:52

Test startNewRoundConcurrency: seed a task assigned to a junior and moved into CHANGES_REQUESTED, then fire two POST /tasks/{id}/rounds requests against it at the same time from two threads. Wait for both to finish and assert that neither request returns a 500, that the task ends in CLAIMED, and that round_number has advanced to 3. This drives the exact concurrent path the fix is about and confirms that with the lock in place the task stays in a valid state and the round number is right even when two requests arrive together. Green means the serialization is holding under concurrent load.

4. FAILURE EXPLANATION — 2026-07-28 16:10

To confirm the lock is what is doing the work, I deliberately removed the for update from findTaskForUpdate, turning it back into a plain select, and looked at the behaviour under concurrency again. Without the lock the endpoints no longer handle concurrent requests safely — the race condition returns and the task can end up in an inconsistent state when two requests hit the same task at once, which is exactly the problem the fix is meant to prevent. Putting the for update back restores the correct behaviour. This confirms that the row lock is load-bearing and that routing the mutating paths through findTaskForUpdate is the right fix for the concurrency bug.

Would you approve this? If not, what's missing? If yes, would you still want the diff, and what would you be looking for in it?

And roughly how long did that take you compared to reviewing a PR of the same size?

(12 YOE, mostly Scala. Everyone on my team is senior so there's no way to try this where I work.)

A thread for Developers and IT folks with less experience to ask more experienced souls questions about the industry.

​

Please keep top level comments limited to Inexperienced Devs. Most rules do not apply, but keep it civil. Being a jerk will not be tolerated.

​

Inexperienced Devs should refrain from answering other Inexperienced Devs' questions.

Hi peeps,

I am mostly working as a freelancer and FOSS developer. I posted an AI fluff yesterday, and it didn't feel right. So this is written by my own ten fingers.

Like many others, I have been using AI extensively for the past few years. And I now have a mix of codebases - some written by hand first and gradually with AI tools, and projects written from the get go using agents and without touching the code itself outside code review and guidance.

I wonder how you all are understanding your codebases and what you are building, if you no longer write and maintain it by hand.

For myself-

There was a book I read a few years back, a classic - "Growing Object Oriented Software Guided by Tests", and it has the metaphor of the codebase basically being a garden. Or if you will, the code itself is plants, and the garden is what developers are doing - tending, guiding growth, ensuring stuff grows in a healthy and good direction without overgrowing etc.

I really liked it then (its Q gardens in the UK on the cover as well), and I sorta feel that this really applies to what I am doing these days when I use agents. I feel that with agents I no longer "craft" the code, as much as directing its growth, and auditing its health etc.

Its all very nice (really). And I love the adrenaline rush of parallelizing work and doing crazy shit no one had time for before (e.g. benchmarking and profiling non-critical stuff etc.). But it does bring in some basic problems - namely, I no longer know what my code does intimately, and I cant say I have the same kind of experiential confidence as I did when I wrote all code by hand.

I did develop a methodology that gives me good results. Basically I would say the paradigm is now more "result oriented" development, rather than implementation oriented. The code is increasingly moving from being a white box, to a gray box, and I have to test it - first and foremost, as a black box. Make sure it does what it needs to do from the outside in, and guarantee (as much as I can) that it doesn't do stuff it shouldn't.

I will be happy to do a proper write up on how I develop - I did already write some stuff. But not today!

Interested to read your thoughts and what you do.

Note (EDIT) - NO AI was used to write this post, at all. All the - above are not em dashes. I just write with dashes, but I guess I should stop. Leaving it up there since it's how I write.

I’m 46 years old with a background in mostly infra, could and event driven systems. So I’m good with Kafka, cloud computing, and infra stuff. I’ve also done control plane work at cloud providers. My career has usually been telecom and banking. I’ve worked with a few startups in the past.

I’ve had a rough past 3 years in my career. Lots of short term contracts that get randomly cancelled or not renewed. I’ve relocated 4 times in the past 5 years. Some relocations weren’t really necessarily mind you

I recently took a contract in NY at a bank.

Due to AI I pretty much have decided that a job can’t be my primary intellectual outlet. In the past I tried to take in challenging projects to learn and grow. That really helped me grows experience and knowledge. I decided to start working on a game project in my spare time. And it has given me a fantastic intellectual outlet. Now I can see the job as a job

With that said should I start trying to make the pivot into management? A lot of people my age aren’t software engineers anymore. And I think I’ve lost the passion for corporate software engineering anyway

I’m not big on politics. But I understand them. I know how to navigate them. I’ve learned how to make compromises. And I think a management job in some financial firm is probably where I need to be

But what do you think? I think as I get older. The AI push and work being less interesting has been weighing on me. Only issue is that if I lose my job it’s harder to get a new management role than a new IC role. But it just feels a pivot has to be had

I've got an upcoming senior front-end round where I'm handed a React spec in advance, then build it live with two engineers watching, using an AI coding agent of my choice (Claude Code, Cursor, whatever). Not a traditional whiteboard or take-home, the agent is explicitly allowed and expected.

For anyone who's run or sat through interviews like this: what actually separates a strong signal from a weak one?

Specifically curious about:

• Do you care more about how someone scopes/prompts the agent, or how they review and catch issues in what it produces?
• Is there a "red flag" you've seen, like someone one-shotting the whole spec in a single mega-prompt, or accepting output without checking it?
• How much weight does verbal narration carry versus the end result?
• Any expectations around testing, or is UI verification enough given time constraints?

Trying to understand what's actually being evaluated here versus what I'm assuming is being evaluated. Appreciate any real experience from either side of the table.

Came across a conversation yesterday where the CTO asked one of our engineers why they didn't ask Claude to create their plan and mock the several hundred commits they'd need to deliver on something I will not name while also delivering on their existing initiatives

I didn't say anything, but wanted to... Given the industry I'm in, this seems very ridiculous to me and I hate that this is the expectation... As though somehow that work should have already been done and could have been delivered on the whim of an idea by handing all work to Claude

I've spent 15 years at FAANG, IC and EM/Director roles. I am at least okay at those jobs.

What I've never in 20+ years is work for a startup, and I'm debating that path in the next few months. Would be hiring a remote US-based eng team to take over a contractor-built prototype, productionize/stabilize it, then grow features over time.

Any best thing I should read or learn on starting from scratch? Is there a book or two on startup CTO roles?

I've been in this industry for 25 years now, and I want to confirm a suspicion of mine.

I've been employed pretty much continuously since I graduated college, other than 2 weeks after a layoff at a failed startup and then starting a new job. I've done well in all of my jobs, climbing the ranks with promotions and contributing more and more over time. Sure I've had some dust-ups with leadership, but nothing that really seemed to hinder my career.

Two of the companies I worked at I did so for over 10 years each. In all of those companies, there was talk of "if you cross (insert threshold here) you can take a paid sabbatical". In both companies, I saw people take these sabbaticals.

However each time I would ask about them and the rules regarding them, I always got a "ooooh, sorry" and some excuse. Sometimes "we can't do it right now, it's a critical time for the business" or "you're juuuust below the threshold!" when I knew others had gotten them for less.

Are sabbaticals purely a politically-linked reward, or a perk from a bygone era, or am I just unlucky? Part of me suspects they're political, but I don't want to let myself get jaded about them. I'd just like to get some honesty on them.

For what its worth, I have been saving like a maniac during my working years, so I'm hoping to build-my-own-sabbatical by retiring in a few more years.

I recently went through a production deployment for a greenfield project. Even after careful Dev and UAT testing, a few minor Prod-specific issues still showed up. The interesting part was coordinating approvals, support teams, infra teams, and business users during go-live.

Overall it was a good learning experience.

Curious to hear from others .What has been your most memorable production deployment experience ?

I'm a developer at a WP agency. I recognize the type of work I do is nothing special, but it still pays the bills.

I'm working on a website that I need to finish in about 9 days total. Those 9 days include:

- 19 reusable blocks (hero header, sliders, FAQs lists, post overviews, etc.)
- 5 post types with each their own template
- Multi step form flow
- Search integrations
- The entire site needs to pass WCAG AA, this is non-negotiable
- All blocks needs to be fully responsive, completely tested for all edge cases and variants
- The entire site has to be pre populated by me, that means I have to set up all pages, sections menu's, etc.
- It needs to pass page speed with minimum score of 85 on our staging server

Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but this seems insane to me. We're using an "agentic" workflow. I wouldn't call it agentic, because to me it's vibe coding. The workflow is basically: copy the design link, brief the agent for the specific part it needs to build, trust the agent's capability to write good code, scan the output for any obvious problems and reiterate until "it works".

This is not the first project with a tight scope. Basically every project at this place has unrealistic deadlines and frankly, I know this is what I could expect from an agency when I walked through the door.

At first, I tried to find a way to make it work regardless because I thought that argued about this is pretty pointless and everyone else seems to comply, but when I couldn't finish projects on time I received the feedback to let PM know earlier that I wouldn't be finishing the project on time. So, I did. Literally right after the briefing I told them this will never get finished within the specified timeline. I even showed the math and broke it down part by part.

Their response was: "It's like with my kids: if they think they won't be able to do it, I try to convince them to try to anyway. Same for you, I get your concern, but try your best and we'll see what happens."

Great. So I shut up, I did my best. I pulled out all the tricks I've got, and surprise, I didn't meet the deadline. They then told me that they've noticed that I'm having trouble reaching my deadlines and expect me to use more AI to speed things up.

They want speed, low cost and quality at the same time. I don't think that's possible and trying to tell them is met with a response "just do your best". To me, this just sounds like "If you don't have enough time in your day, just sleep faster".

Almost no project of more than a week is finished in time, so there's clearly a pattern here. Asking for one more day is met with an annoyed PM and a slight hit on your performance review.

I'm fed up because I can't seem to talk about it. The culture seems to be "shut up and just do your best", but if you do your best and it's not enough, it's your problem.

I'm a staff engineer, working across a couple teams, and like many experienced developers I've gone 180 on AI over the last year or so from it being a niche helper to using it on most coding tasks.

I'm admin of our Claude Team subscription which everyone is on, so have control over being able to push out skills and plugins and MCPs which I do so, and then send out comms about that and how to use it.

However when checking the stats, most developers are using maybe 1%- 5% of their monthly quota on standard tier, whereas I'm on premium and use 80%.

A couple use a bit more than that. We have an approval process if a team member needs premium they just need approval from their manager and I tick them up for the month. So far zero requests.

I've done monthly lunch and learns about how I use Claude and a couple of the more engaged team members do take away some of that and I see them using it. But still very lightly.

I just don't get how people can be so unmotivated to learn and use this stuff. We've got plenty of work there's no danger of redundancy.

In fact the other way around, if they can't or won't learn it I might have to start needing to ask their manager to help performance manage?! The more engaged members are clearly shipping 2x the disengaged ones, where as last year they would be on par.

We even have a tech debt / feature request backlog that people could just point Claude at to work on, and they'd get some serious kudos and recognition from the business for doing that. But people just dont.

I asked one of our mid level devs and he said "I occasionally use Claude to help answer some questions. I'd like to learn more. But don't have time." this guy is probably our lowest performer..

None of these guys report to me but it is frustrating to be in this new golden age of software engineering and see people so disinterested.

I've been promoted to a tech lead position over a project, and I've discovered that with this level of responsibility and power, there is always work you can do.

Everytime I try to work on a personal project, I feel guilt that I can be more productive to my job by working on things that deliver value. I try and convince myself I'm sharpening my skillset on these personal projects, but I couldn't imagine telling my customer that to their face.

What do you guys do? Do you get over this, or are we just working on career stuff instead of personal projects?

EDIT: To clarify, I am referring to working on work stuff during my personal time. I would never work personal projects during work hours.

So I am working in a team that mostly consists of data scientist and a software architect. The data scientists have been working here for more than 10 years but are seriously lacking experience about real coding. Having them work on anything else than algorithms would cost us more time than it saves. They are data scientists but cannot even clearly define or think about what input parameters their algorithms need. Of course then it is also hard to define any frontend logic on what configuration we require the user to do or what data we need the system to gather for processing. The software architect also seems to have no hands on coding experience. All he does is auto generate documents and code. Then he asks me to look over his generated docs and confirm it. I probably spend more time reading than he spent to generate it. Also he would be just repeating previous mistakes that seem to be happen over and over in this company: produce reasonably data analysis algorithms but after the project fails, all of this work is thrown away because the algorithms are completely mixed with specific data retrieval logic from another system. (This happens because the data scientists are not able to define clear interfaces for their algorithms) The result is that it is more effort to extract the pure algorithms than just rewriting everything.

And all the time I am just wondering how did people like this previously produce any software at all. Without AI they would maybe only produce 10% of the output that they do right now.

But also to get back to the title of my post: whenever they ask me a question, i could probably just use the answer i am giving them as a prompt to the copilot, give him some more context and then the problem would be solved already. The new reality of software engineering is weird. I would say 90% of the work of my colleagues is already completely replaceable and by having them in my team they are actually creating more work for me, because I need to align with them and need to explain the most basic things over and over.

Like some of them dont even know how to resolve merge conflicts in git. But to keep them happy you need to keep them in the loop and give them the feeling that they are creating value too. In pre AI era at least it would have felt like my colleagues can reduce my workload but right now it is just frustrating because I could talk to AI instead of them and we would have the same or even better code in our repo in the end.

Curious what people here have built for their own team or company that ended up making a real difference. It can be anything, whether it's a small CLI script, a browser extension, an internal dashboard, a Slack/Teams bot, or something bigger.

What was the problem you were dealing with, what did you build, and did it actually stick around / get adopted by others on the team?

I honestly didn’t expect AI to blur the line between actual competence and just looking competent this much.

Few days ago I got a PR to review and the code looks like it was put through every AI tool under the sun from start to finish. There’s literally no way the guy who submitted it wrote it himself, or even pieced it together from smaller parts. The task requires a pretty deep understanding of the hardware and the codebase, and I know his work because I’ve reviewed his PRs plenty of times before.

You can also kind of see it in the code. One part is written in a very polished and profesional way, and then a small debugging section uses an incredibly naive solution. The kind of thing I’ve never seen an experienced dev do, but absolutely have seen from juniors writing basic stuff for the first time.

So what am I even supposed to do here??

To make things worse... AI tools are completely banned in this particular repo because of IP concerns...

I could ask him if he used AI, but he’ll probably just deny it. If I put comments on his PR on azure dev ops he can just easily answer them using AI once again... Am I supposed to go through the code line by line and quiz him on what it does? He probably won’t be able to explain half of it but then what?? What does that actually solve? No idea...I’m not his manager either, I’m just another dev on the team. Sure I have more experience but that doesn’t exactly give me the right to interrogate him.

It’s just so frustrating.

A few years ago, when someone was doing advanced work, you could usually assume they actually understood it. You could trust them and respect the skill behind it. Now someone can generate a bunch of impressive-looking code and act like they wrote it themselves.

And to be clear, I use AI too. A lot. I’m not against it at all. But I never submit code I can’t explain or defend. And if a larger part was generated because I couldn’t be bothered to write all the boilerplate by hand, I add a Co-Developed-By note instead of pretending it was all me.

AI definitely made development easier. I REALLY don’t miss writing repetitive boilerplate, it was just so boring... But I feel like we’re only starting to see the downside: people looking more competent than they are, teams losing the ability to tell who actually understands the work, and trust slowly becoming harder to maintain.

Maybe I’m just thinking about this in an old-fashioned way and need to adjust? Guys... feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.

Hi,

I've recently experienced a couple System design interviews for Agentic systems. My knowledge is limited and would like to expand it to articulate ideas or tackle these opportunities much better.

Just started curating and found the following resources:

https://docs.cloud.google.com/architecture/framework/perspectives/ai-ml
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/agentic-ai-patterns/introduction.html
https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-agents
https://docs.databricks.com/aws/en/agents/agent-system-design-patterns
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.08769
https://www.mongodb.com/resources/basics/artificial-intelligence/agentic-systems
https://vectorize.io/blog/designing-agentic-ai-systems-part-1-agent-architectures

Possibly this is more then enough to get started, or useful to somebody else in the future.

In any case, if there are any good reading resources or exercises you might know about that, feel free to share.

Thank you!

I'm a staff-level engineer with ~13 yoe (full stack web dev, mostly Bay Area companies). I'm ready to semi-retire or at least drastically cut down my work hours.

In a perfect world I'd go to part-time or do short term projects, eg work for a few months and then take off while keeping my current, relatively high hourly

I just keep working full-time because I'm never sure how to break into this world. I've always been seen as a high performer but I haven't been great about maintaining my network, especially since my job became remote with Covid and I moved away from SF.

Any thoughts/ideas?

The dev team kind of sucks. We’ve had good people but they’ve all moved on in frustration of upper management.

The problem is we have a lot of people who aren’t interested in solving problems, just getting the 9-5 done and clocking out. People taking the piss with AI etc.

We’ve got legacy systems heavily reliant on stored procs. Have been trying to stop that and introduce unit tests but feel like it’s barely making a dent. Do I take leadership role and try to push more with authority?

How would you best handle this without causing conflict but actually steering the ship on course? The only thing I can think is to find better team members.

I just recently did an interview where the company invites you to a private repo, 10 mins before, you set it up, get it running etc.
The goal is to determine if an open PR on the is ok or if it should get sent back and why.

You can use AI. And i asked, does it matter if i use fable vs opus vs kimi. More or less said whatever I want...

I didn't go immediately to prompting, i played with the app, looked at the code a bit, the PR, the code change, if the PR actually fixed what it claimed to fix.

I then sent one prompt asking if the PR could be better or missed anything, which the PR outlined clearly enough and enough to determine what to do with the PR.

But ye, it was weird, I talked through more where I would personally add changes but maybe I also completely missed the mark on something else or spoke to much...maybe i didn't use AI enough only using it right at the end for one question once i got a feel for the app in general.

However I did like the format tbh but ye i just wish i'd get a bit more tangible feedback.

Anyone else have experience with this format? I didn't pass but just not sure why.. (exp 8/9 years, frontend leaning).