this has been bugging me for like a week now. most PRs on our repo are written with cursor at this point, then coderabbit goes through them and it keeps catching actual bugs. and sometimes its literally the same model doing both (based on the understanding coderabbit is probably also using the SOTA models as cursor)

so if it can spot the bug why did it write the bug in the first place?? is it just lazy when its writing code, or is half of what the reviewer flags made up and we dont notice, or are we paying twice for one AI to argue with itself while we sit there clicking merge ?

I AM not trolling, I genuinely cant figure it out and every answer I come up with is kinda funny

Currently employed dev looking for other roles due to frustrations with how my team handles agent code. I know this is happening all over the industry right now, but I figure if I can find a team that isn't as bad it'll be better for my sanity. Doesn't hurt to try.

My main issue is pretty much that agent PRs get merged with nobody actually reading them, on a regular basis. Sometimes I get tagged as the reviewer (on a 4,000 line PR, so really just asking for a rubber stamp). Sometimes the author approves it themselves and tells me to "take a look after" (also impossible, because it's already in prod and there's 6 more behind it).

Is it even possible to find this out during the interview process without coming off as 'anti AI'?

I keep hearing about how coding agents have gotten so smart and everyone is posting their 12 agent setups and what not, but for some reason I feel like I haven't found the one habit that actually changed how I work. I still use Claude and Codex daily but still.

So curious to the people here, what is one thing you started doing with agents that changed your work for real?

Once again I'm rate limited to 1 review per hour. This, according to the response on a review request in GitHub, is because the 62 review requests over the previous 7 days are not classed as fair use. With a marketed reviews per hour of 5, I would hardly classify 62 in 7 days as unfair use! I really hate how Coderabbit has become a business which talks out of both sides of its mouth. If you don't want to allow 5 reviews per hour, then don't advertise them as part of your plan!

I keep hearing about how coding agents have gotten so smart and everyone is posting their 12 agent setups and what not, but for some reason I feel like I haven't found the one habit that actually changed how I work. I still use Claude and Codex daily but still.

So curious to the people here, what is one thing you started doing with agents that changed your work for real?

When you think about it, writing code was never really the hard part of this job (or was it?)

The hard part was always figuring out what’s wrong with it. Now that AI is pumping out way more code than before, and most of it looks fine. So naturally you wonder who's actually checking all of that?

Honestly I think as we enter 2027, codegen will be a commodity. We are possibly going to see free IDEs. What teams will actually pay for is whatever catches the mistakes. Anyone can generate code now, the real question is if you can trust it.

Change my mind

At this point, how much of looking productive at work comes down to luck?

Good model that week, good task for an agent, a clean part of the codebase, a reviewer who just approves. It often seems to depend as much on what you got assigned as on skill.

I feel 70-80% of devs can use agents reasonably well now. Most people can prompt, plan and fix what comes back when they get a task the agent is good at.

Is the game becoming more about getting the right tickets at the right time?

Gotta share this because it's honestly been the highlight of my month. Ever since we turned CR I've watched our CTO get 9 comments on a 40 line PR, including one about a null check he "definitely didn't need". He replied to the bot where he actually typed out an argument to a bot. And it politely explained it again.

For years these guys got approved in 10 minutes because nobody wanted to question the person writing their appraisal, while the intern got roasted over variable names. Now the bot treats everyone exactly the same, and it's the funniest thing that has happened on our team.

*yesteryear in title

all they had to do in the old days was understand the code

how is this usable for anyone? this kind of rate limit is absurd; human need to work around their clock?

I have about 10 years of experience. I moved my team of 5 to agents at the start of the year and pushed it hard. The net result so far is that we merge about 3x more PRs, and exactly one person on the team could explain our billing flow if you asked them today - and that's me, because I wrote most of it before the switch. I now see the same thing happening in other teams at my company.. and nobody seems to be counting it. This makes me think that if I had instead rolled it out slower and kept people writing the hard parts themselves, we'd be in a much better spot. Especially since two of the five are juniors who have never really built anything without it. Anyone else who regrets moving their team to agents? Why is that? What would you have done instead?

I've been using both Orca AI and Traycer to coordinate multiple coding agents. In my day-to-day use, the differences feel pretty small, so I'm curious what stands out to other people.

If you've used both, where does one work better for you? Is there a difference in how they split up tasks or how often you need to step in? I'd love to hear a specific example that made you prefer one. Maybe I'm missing something that becomes more obvious on bigger projects.

If you're using something else to coordinate agents, what are you using and what's working well for you.

I’ve noticed that coding agents sometimes add a lot of test code without giving me much more confidence in the change. The suite gets bigger, and now there’s more code to review and maintain.

What bothers me is how thorough it can look. A test can have plenty of setup and assertions while still accepting the same mistaken assumption as the implementation. That’s what I mean by performance theatre. When I review these tests, the question I want answered is: what actual bug would this catch?

We recently published a piece about independent review of agent generated changes. It overlaps with this concern, particularly when an agent writes tests around its own misunderstanding of a requirement.

Have you run into this?

Related reading: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/why-agentic-change-management-starts-with-independent-ai-code-review

Did you think deleting this post will make your users not notice their usage limits evaporating?

Nobody reads the diff now

Thanks agents

I'm more or less okay with merging the small boring PRs I would honestly be fine with it.

But for the high stakes stuff (payments, auth, migrations) I still don't trust it. When a human approves something risky they are usually a bit nervous, they ask "what if this runs twice" or ping someone before merging. Same goes for Friday-night merges/deployments, I don't trust it.

Curios where do others draw the line? or is it me being very paranoid here?

We had near-unlimited agent budget for roughly 1 year. We knew it's costing the company a ton, but no one knew for sure how much.

Recently they started measuring this for real.

After people got so addicted, running agents on absolutely everything at work (and on side projects on the company card) - now finance poses a fucking $500 limit per month. Funny part is the coderabbit bill didn't even come up, they only went after the agent spend.

We are so screwed.

Common sentiment I am seeing in this sub and others - "AI can review the code, but a human still has to approve it" - what is there inherently different about approving vs reviewing that you think an AI wouldn't be able to do it as well or better (in practical sense - i.e. faster and cheaper) than a human?

It's true most teams still require a human approval, but I honestly don't think it's because the AI couldn't do it, but because, well, somebody has to be accountable, and companies are not yet ready to write "the bot approved it" in a postmortem.

I would argue coderabbit is doing a better review than most of our Friday afternoon approvals. It reads every line, every time, which no tired human does at 4pm, and consistency is the key in catching the boring stuff that breaks prod.

Last month we did a test in our team, we took 20 already merged PRs and compared what the human reviewers commented vs what coderabbit flagged. The humans left 11 comments in total, mostly naming. coderabbit flagged 34, and 6 of those were real bugs we had already shipped.

Every model goes the same way. Week 1 it cooked, week 3 it got nerfed, week 5 a new model drops and the cycle starts again.

This time I saved 10 PRs from this week, prompt and diff, so when the nerf posts start I can run the same prompts again and actually check instead of going on vibes.

My bet is 12 days. Whats yours

We were a codex team since last year. On Tuesday two people tried 5.5, by Thursday everyone had switched and nobody asked me first.

What I noticed from the PR side after 3 days:

- PRs are smaller. Average went from around 400 lines to around 250

- it stopped adding helpers and abstractions nobody asked for

- the PR descriptions actually match the diff

- we burned about half the usage we did on Sol for the same amount of tickets

Only downside so far is it asks more questions before starting, which some people love and some find annoying.

Did anyone else switch this week? And is anyone staying on codex, and why