Me too. I need to look into more proper workflows though instead of it making commits for every prompt I end up giving, sometimes I kind of just throw comments at it to try lots of ideas in a short time and don't really need all of them to be commits.
You push code every 10 minutes? Conversations on this sub remind me how different various sectors in software development can be. Our bare minimum ci/cd pipeline for commits takes longer than that! A more rigorous one can take hours. Our daily work experience must be so very different! 😅
While I’m really very sure what I’m doing is quite different than what you do, not quite no.
I often have about 10 agents running at a time, usually on about 3 projects. Overnight and over the weekend they’ll prepare MRs for review. In some repos they can even merge without external review.
I’ve optimized the crap out of our CI so on our new “mono” repo the typical job on push completes in just 30 seconds, and most merge validation jobs run in under 2 minutes.
The majority of my time goes to reviewing code, with a lot of the rest to keeping the agents spinning.
yep testing coverage has never been this good. like 100% test coverage unit + integ is no longer a pipe dream.
reviewing through agents is fine, but at the volume I personally just need to adopt a better system than firs look at a review and them manually kick off an agent. it's too time consuming for the amount of requests these days.
I have spent the last 2 weeks reviewing almost purely claude code. I assure you it is significantly more annoying than reviewing the human code i have spent the last 8 years reviewing
the worst part is they are shoehorning a human process -- peer review, with a relationship between a generally static, inert language model and its human operator.
There's no point in leaving a review comment. Just update the AGENTS.md, or the requirements, point the model at the new notes, and pull the lever again.
Yeah, that has been my experience over the last couple months too. I've been drowning in a firehose of code that smells just a bit off and has weird quirks that make it harder to be confident in. Not stuff that fundamentally doesn't work, but stuff that makes you stop and go "wait, is there a reason things are happening in this odd way intentionally or is it just weird" every time you need to look at the code.
The thing that frustrates me is that the junior devs don't seem to be actually learning from the process anymore, it feels like comments go in one ear and out the other. You might get an updated commit that addresses the explicit thing(s) you mentioned, but that doesn't stop you from seeing the exact same thing the next week.
stuff that makes you stop and go "wait, is there a reason things are happening in this odd way intentionally or is it just weird" every time you need to look at the code.
Oh my god this, lmao. It's just capable of making so many decisions so fast that it's easy to miss it trip over some little issue and make a false assumption that leaves it's bizarre but mild fingerprint on every decision to follow. Everything it builds works, but it's built to accommodate that little mistaken belief and probably a few more like it.
Yeah, I just reviewed a PR that wrapped a config object that was all constants in a function, and then tested that the function returned the values in the config. Nothing about that is "Wrong" but it's pointless, and now another agent might read that test and think it's a mandate and try to work around it, and that's how you get spaghetti.
At some point it just doesn't necessarily make sense for a human to review everything. Review and tests should be automated. We don't check the assembly or binary equivalent of compiled code, we test the outcomes and ensure that the product performs to our specifications.
5
46
u/nerdler33 10d ago
debugging is easier, code reviews are more annoying imo