I don’t understand how this provides anything above using GitHub status checks and branch protections to require conversations to be resolved before merging. Combined with the GitHub CLI, this gives agents everything they need to achieve the same result. More AI slop on top of AI slop. At this point when seeing these kinds of posts I feel like Edward Norton in front of the copy machine.
Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#32Sorry, so the tool is now even circumventing human review? Is that the goal? So the agent can now merge shit by itself? Just the let damn thing push nto prod by itself at this point.
It sounds like the goal is to get the code to human review without it being obviously broken in CI but the agent has no idea that's the case.
Yeah, it is about making sure that EVERY actionable PR comment gets addressed - whwther by fixing, resolving, creating a new issue, commenting that it is a will not fix, or blocking for human review - and then giving you a clear deterministic check you can do to reliably enforce your policy.
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#33I don’t understand how this provides anything above using GitHub status checks and branch protections to require conversations to be resolved before merging. Combined with the GitHub CLI, this gives agents everything they need to achieve the same result. More AI slop on top of AI slop. At this point when seeing these kinds of posts I feel like Edward Norton in front of the copy machine.
Some github comments are marked as sctionable, some have threads and suggestions, some are suggestions or are nitpicks. This provides you with a deterministic, reliable red/green approach that you cn use to enforce your policy. Give it a try and you will see how it is much more reliable than using a nondeterministic agent, especially for complex reviews!
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#34[dead]
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#35“The problem no one talks about” is a bit of breathless LLM spew, and an even better tell than an emdash
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#36Sorry, so the tool is now even circumventing human review? Is that the goal? So the agent can now merge shit by itself? Just the let damn thing push nto prod by itself at this point.
I don’t think “ready to merge” necessarily means the agent actually merges. Just that it’s gone as far as it can automatically. It’s up to you whether to review at that point or merge, depending on the project and the stakes. If there are CI failures or obvious issues that another AI can identify, why not have the agent keep going until those are resolved? This tool just makes that process more token efficient. Seems…
[dead]
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#37That repo is quintessentially surreal. AI-written code, published in AI-made PRs, reviewed by multiple AI bots (one of which being same model that wrote code & made the PR, maybe others too just accessible via 3rd vendor), merged by AI (assuming dogfooding).
Re: Show HN: I built a tool to assist AI agents to know when a PR is good to go
#38Sorry, so the tool is now even circumventing human review? Is that the goal? So the agent can now merge shit by itself? Just the let damn thing push nto prod by itself at this point.
I don’t think “ready to merge” necessarily means the agent actually merges. Just that it’s gone as far as it can automatically. It’s up to you whether to review at that point or merge, depending on the project and the stakes. If there are CI failures or obvious issues that another AI can identify, why not have the agent keep going until those are resolved? This tool just makes that process more token efficient. Seems…
This tool seems agent-oriented for them to merge, rather merely check readiness. In that regard, the page doesn't mention anything about human reviewers, only AI reviewers. Honestly wouldn't be surprised if author, someone seemingly running fully agentic workflows, didn't even consider human reviewers. If it's AI start-to-end*, then yes, quite possibly could push directly to master without much difference.
Call me pessimistic, and considering [1][2][3] (and other similar articles/discussions), believe this tool will be most useful to AI PR spammers the moment is modified to also parse non-AI PR comments.
*Random question: is it start-to-end or end-to-end?
edit: P.S. Agree that it's useful, given its design goals, tool though.
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1q3f89b/ [2]: https://devansh.bearblog.dev/ai-slop/ [3]: https://etn.se/index.php/nyheter/72808-curl-removes-bug-boun... (currently trending first page)