Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#23

Post by madamelic »

Neat idea.

I am more curious about your AI workflow as I stay away from other's tools because I don't trust vibe-code related tools.

What is the workflow difference between `fragments/` and `plans/`. They seem logically the same but seem to have been used for different purposes.

Is this something it did on its own or is this something you prompted it to do?

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#25

Post by mock-possum »

yuppiepuppie wrote: post #7

The best code review improvement I have done in my workflow with Claude is using tuicr ( https://tuicr.dev ). It runs locally, YOU review all the code locally, and feedback that to Claude. Agents reviewing AI code always felt dirty to me, especially when working on production (non-disposable) code.

[dead]

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#26

Post by suralind »

yuppiepuppie wrote: post #7

The best code review improvement I have done in my workflow with Claude is using tuicr ( https://tuicr.dev ). It runs locally, YOU review all the code locally, and feedback that to Claude. Agents reviewing AI code always felt dirty to me, especially when working on production (non-disposable) code.

I was thinking for years about doing something like this. Thank you for linking this. Would be nice if it allowed to "reject" or mark a change to fix later, but honestly when it would need to be linked to some tracking tool and it would be overkill.

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#27

Post by kuri-sun »

Curious what kinds of bugs the multi-agent setup catches thatsingle-pass review misses in practice. Is it more about coverage(different agents looking at different aspects) or about getting a second opinion on the same aspect? The README has examples but the mechanism by which the parallelism actually helps isn't obvious to me from them.

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#28

Post by lmeyerov »

kuri-sun wrote: post #27

Curious what kinds of bugs the multi-agent setup catches thatsingle-pass review misses in practice. Is it more about coverage(different agents looking at different aspects) or about getting a second opinion on the same aspect? The README has examples but the mechanism by which the parallelism actually helps isn't obvious to me from them.

Yes, being comprehensive, so early or blatant cheapo findings do not distract from other ones. That's important for base results. Splitting in both file and task is (currently) important.

Additionally, we run in a loop until it stops finding things, and as part of that, do test amplification when it does find any. We regularly see 3-8 rounds yielding valid results.

IMO half the value is customization to your repo, so copying these and specializing to your repo is super quick and pays off almost immediately . How to find style guides, how to run tests, what dimensions of correctness to look for, etc.

We do a similar look here: https://github.com/graphistry/pygraphistry/blob/master/agent...

This kind of thing makes me question how important Mythos is for security bug finding - doing a High effort loop with a frontier model in code reviews until convergence has already outperformed human review for us . (Doesn't replace, but does find things we miss, and catches many we do see earlier).

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#29

Post by adamthegoalie »

kuri-sun wrote: post #27

Curious what kinds of bugs the multi-agent setup catches thatsingle-pass review misses in practice. Is it more about coverage(different agents looking at different aspects) or about getting a second opinion on the same aspect? The README has examples but the mechanism by which the parallelism actually helps isn't obvious to me from them.

I was thinking about building a GitHub repo made for evaluating Code Reviews. Something like a complex app (or perhaps a few branches with different options), and then PRs on each branch with varying types and degrees of bugs for a Code Review to find.

I suppose this would not be a 'real' benchmark because it would be public and so you couldn't necessarily trust scores people share about how their own tool did, but it would at least allow anyone to try out code review tools on their own and report relative effectiveness and characteristics.

I'll post again if I end up finding or building something like that. I couldn't find anything when I looked previously.

I'll also keep in mind your question as I continue testing this, because you are right that it would be useful to be able to describe what is different, not just the magnitude of bugs found.

Re: Show HN: adamsreview – better multi-agent PR reviews for Claude Code

#30

Post by adamthegoalie »

madamelic wrote: post #23

Neat idea. I am more curious about your AI workflow as I stay away from other's tools because I don't trust vibe-code related tools. What is the workflow difference between `fragments/` and `plans/`. They seem logically the same but seem to have been used for different purposes. Is this something it did on its own or is this something you prompted it to do?

Hey thanks for the comment and the question.

I would say my workflow for any meaningful amount of work is (all in Claude Code):

- PRD: I discuss and brainstorm with Claude Code using something like the Grill Me skill https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/tree/main/skills/produc... but that I've modified a bit for my own style, until I have a good PRD (what the goals / design decisions are for what I'm building)

--- I run this PRD through multiple AI reviews (sometimes ChatGPT Pro for really important PRDs, because it seems to have some of the best critical feedback)

--- I read the PRD myself in detail before finalizing.

- PLAN: I have Claude Code develop the plan for implementing the PRD. Again, I have this reviewed several times by CC and sometimes by other tools for effectiveness, consistency with the PRD, consistency with the codebase, and internal consisenty.

- EXECUTE: I have an orchestration command I made that has CC execute the PLAN and use a build journal, using sub-agents whenever possible to save context, so that it can operate for up to several hours.

- QUICK REVIEWS: I have these commands /review-fix-loop /quick-dual-review which loops around running a Claude+Codex sub agents review and then fixing anything critical (deferring items needing human judgment)

- CODE REVIEWS: This is when I run between one and several of the adamsreview reviews, starting with /review --ensemble, then /walkthrough, then /fix; until I am satisfied.

Would it be useful if I packaged all this stuff into a GH repo to share with you and others?

Post reply on HN