11–20 of 66 posts
> The entire system also runs locally. I think approaches like this don't need to run other than locally. Maybe integrated as pre-push hook. The system is nondeterministic, so it's at odds with the purpose of CI.
I'm not sure the people integrating it into CI process understand what CI is.
> Today, when an engineer at Cloudflare opens a merge request, it gets an initial pass from a coordinated smörgåsbord of AI agents. I’d prefer to have that happen as some sort of pre commit hook, before a merge request is sent. The feedback loop might be a bit faster and the process might produce less noise this way.
> One of the operational headaches we didn’t predict was that large, advanced models like Claude Opus 4.7 or GPT-5.4 can sometimes spend quite a while thinking through a problem, and to our users this can make it look exactly like a hung job. I had the same problem in my recursive agent harness. It would always come back, but it could sometimes take up to 10 minutes depending. I fixed this by adding a required "purpo…
> Today, when an engineer at Cloudflare opens a merge request, it gets an initial pass from a coordinated smörgåsbord of AI agents. I’d prefer to have that happen as some sort of pre commit hook, before a merge request is sent. The feedback loop might be a bit faster and the process might produce less noise this way.
Valid, but you lose the lived history that comes with the audit log of it being actual review back and forth and CI runs vs lost to a developers machine and only a relic in the commit log. I can see both sides, though.
It’s exclusively been the other way around where having a smaller number of larger squished commits (post merge) that’s made the project be more maintainable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the people integrating it into CI process understand what CI is.
Same can be said about human review if the argument is non-determinism.
> Today, when an engineer at Cloudflare opens a merge request, it gets an initial pass from a coordinated smörgåsbord of AI agents. I’d prefer to have that happen as some sort of pre commit hook, before a merge request is sent. The feedback loop might be a bit faster and the process might produce less noise this way.
Pre-commit hooks should be fast, as it's something you'd do (normally) a few dozen times a year. I don't believe sending a review job to a remote agent is fast, nor will waiting for a review to finish a commit be good for anyone.
CI on the other hand can be slower and runs async, it's fire and forget so you can switch tasks.
If noise is an issue, one possible solution is to create a merge request, have the tools review it, make the fixes, rewrite history like you did it perfectly the first time ("fix" commits are noise), then create a new one for human review.