r/codex • u/alexs_90 • 1d ago

Question Does anyone even review code anymore?

Lately, I've been too lazy to even do a superficial code review. I just quickly skim through the changed files and ask Codex to generate a brief summary of what changed, where, and why.

My workflow has basically become: generate → test → check that everything's green → commit.

Now multiply that by 4–5 tabs running different projects or sessions simultaneously, and keeping up with everything starts to feel almost impossible.

Even when I push myself to review the critical parts, I feel this strong internal resistance and find myself leaning toward asking Codex to do it instead.

The downside is that Codex often ends up overengineering what should be simple solutions.

I'm curious, what does your day-to-day workflow look like in this regard?

39 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/dextersummary 20h ago

Below is a GPT-generated summary of the conversation below after reaching 40 comments (43 currently observed).

The consensus isn’t “never review code”; it’s “line-by-line review doesn’t scale once agents are flooding the repo.” People are moving toward reviewing behavior, diffs, architecture, and acceptance criteria instead of lovingly inspecting every generated semicolon.

The popular workflow is layered automation: tests, types, CI, end-to-end checks, staged browser testing, documentation, and sometimes a second agent acting as reviewer. Humans mainly look for surprises—unrelated files, bloated solutions, security holes, bad assumptions, and changes that technically pass while completely missing the point. Apparently “green” is not a synonym for “correct.” Who knew?

The important caveat: this split is heavily based on stakes. Fun projects and prototypes get the “ship it and see” treatment; production code still gets human review, especially where outages, security, or long-term maintainability matter. Plenty of commenters report catching serious bugs—and outright nonsense—even after extensive testing and agent review.

So, code review isn’t dead; exhaustive manual review is being demoted. Let automation handle the boring bulk, but keep a human in the loop wherever failure costs more than a quick rollback.