Code review isn’t a quality gate, it’s a way to maintain shared understanding of a codebase.
Throwing out code review is equivalent to throwing your hands up and saying you don’t need to understand anything about what your code is doing in its black box.
I don’t think anyone on this forum is half as smart as they think they are, especially in terms of systems engineering a black box solution. Myself included. Someone needs to understand what’s going on inside the Widget Factory until we have full Artificial General Intelligence.
I think that is what the C-suite is currently wanting out of our engineers. Prompt, don't write, maybe read a bit, don't stop, ship, ship, ship.
What exactly would you say it is you do around here?
Why? Because I started to run into way too many AI generated messes in codebases. The agents are really good at some things and complete ass at others.
It really depends on the context. A react button background color - meh - the critical part of the backend where a new 300ms delay will cost the company millions then yeah.
If it is so critical, why don't we have tests and benchmarks for it?
Oh right, because "Greg the super-coder" never wrote any of this down and it lives in his head so he can be the arbiter of change.
It was toxic before agentic coding, it's still toxic now.
Document your systems. Add tests and benchmarks for what is important.
We've always known this, we have a dozen or more textbooks written about it. But we always gave it a pass because "Greg the super-coder" was producing more value than he was hurting.
That's no longer the case. Your best coder is now Opus or Astra
Thats a fair point, but Ive seen LLMs modify the surrounding environment to “pass the test”
A human still has to be responsible at some point.
No, that's our _fastest_ coder, which is a different thing than _best_
If a performance regression like this isn't caught by an automated testing suite, you have made a horrible mistake.
these might be 1% typically
One of those things made of code that we should neither be writing nor reviewing? Shouldn't I just assume that the LLM did that or whatever?