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

GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

entelligence.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#81

Post by CharlieDigital »

I found Luna and even 5.4-mini to be quite good at code review provided a few things:

1. Run it in multiple cycles, only on the diff, and only emit a few findings at a time.

2. Give it a memory so each cycle, it knows the previous finding to check if it's been fixed.

3. Give it access to canonical docs that encode your human reviewer heuristics. I exposed these as tool calls so they could be tracked via telemetry.

4. Run multiple reviewers, each with a tight focus. Security, performance, structural, database, etc. Each a separate prompt and persona. Additionally, we had file activation filters so the FE React reviewer didn't activate on BE only changes.

Luna and 5.4-mini with no reasoning were exceptionally fast and almost always found issues with code produced by Opus and Fable.

Default prompts for the curious (these are templates deployed by default, but customizable).

Performance: https://github.com/zeeq-ai/zeeq-app/blob/main/src/backend/Ze...

Structural: https://github.com/zeeq-ai/zeeq-app/blob/main/src/backend/Ze...

(Keep in mind each agent also has tools to access and reference external docs.)

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#82

Post by gregwebs »

baxtr wrote: post #36
jacobgold wrote: post #8

IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they're the best available. If you can get away with using the $200/mo subscriptions, it's really not even a money thing for most professionals. Almost all of my work is now plan, generate, review, pla…

Could you elaborate on your exact setup? Where do you run these models?

I use a workflow that has different named subagents. [1] Agent profiles can be pinned to models. So you set the model you want on your main thread as the orchestrator. Create an agent for the "planner", "implementer", and "reviewer" and set the model you want for each. Right now I am orchestrating and implementing with Deepseek, planning with Astra, and reviewing with Opus.

I am doing this with the Pi harness right now. To use a Claude monthly plan you need to use the pi-claude-bridge plugin.

If you are using just Claude for example you can use Sonnet as the implementer and Fable/Opus as the planner.

[1] https://github.com/gregwebs/skills-sdlc/

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#83

Post by epolanski »

nonethewiser wrote: post #18

AI should be used for code review but not in CI. You should already have 2+ developers looking at most PRs. And these developers should absolutely use AI. The PR author should use AI. But what you should not do is pipe the AI output directly into the PR and tell the PR author to deal with it. That's adding noise to the PR review process. Everything it says is something the PR author needs to validate as relevant, hel…

I'm glad I work in places where there's no such silly pointless rules like how many people need to review a PR.

The PR author asks for feedback if it needs feedback, otherwise it merges it, period.

I don't know why and when the world got convinced that all this bureaucracy is a "best practice", when it's just a practice, that can be good, or a waste of time depending on many factors.

Like do doctors when analyzing your medical records are like "I have a diagnosis, but first let me have two colleagues review it"? No, unless they are at the beginning and it's part of the process or they need one.

And that's way more serious than the crap most HN is writing.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#84

Post by bigstrat2003 »

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #29
VBprogrammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't ask an agent to review a PR then just copy/paste the output int PR would you? Hasn't everyone already got agents directly adding themselves to PRs and leaving comments (occasionally useful)?

Yes. I sympathize with the “every PR needs human eyes on it” ethos but fundamentally the only thing that scales with AI PR generation is AI PR review.

That's probably true. And it is also a glaring red flag saying "STOP LETTING AN LLM GENERATE PRs". Far too few will heed that red flag, I fear.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#85

Post by epolanski »

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #29
VBprogrammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't ask an agent to review a PR then just copy/paste the output int PR would you? Hasn't everyone already got agents directly adding themselves to PRs and leaving comments (occasionally useful)?

Yes. I sympathize with the “every PR needs human eyes on it” ethos but fundamentally the only thing that scales with AI PR generation is AI PR review.

I don't get the point of AI pr review.

If the AI can review the pr, it can do so before the PR exists in the first place.

It's a tool/skill/prompt. Just share it with the end user or encode it in the codebase in some files.

It may actually be even more useful as that person will use it often and improve it or can it.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#86

Post by stefangordon »

nonethewiser wrote: post #18

AI should be used for code review but not in CI. You should already have 2+ developers looking at most PRs. And these developers should absolutely use AI. The PR author should use AI. But what you should not do is pipe the AI output directly into the PR and tell the PR author to deal with it. That's adding noise to the PR review process. Everything it says is something the PR author needs to validate as relevant, hel…

Our agents automatically review our PR's - the authors agents automatically see the feedback and make fixes, and automatically merge when everything is green.

A well authored CI review process is significantly better than any human could do. We have the AI review not only the changes but clone and investigate all related repositories that integrate with the code to evaluate interactions, check all open and historical issues that may be related, review production/development logs for the feature, etc.

It will then also go update issues/tasks to reflect the changes after the merge.

Similarly you can have automated agents watching post-deployment to mitigate risk in the "a new feature just went out" time-frame. Just having someone check the related logs in the hours after deployment can catch a lot of issues that otherwise would turn into a fire-drill.

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#87

Post by topato »

cheschire wrote: post #48
mchusma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a two human PR requirement until recently we dropped it. It was slowing us down too much now the human developer creating the future is obviously writing it all with AI so they need to check it then depending on the feature and it’s use it requires a PR but it’s not universal and we’ve stepped up our automated test Tan X what it used to be it’s been so far fewer bugs better delivery

I, too, have noticed a degradation in my grammar when I converse too frequently with AI.

If you imagine someone speaking that comment out loud, but speaking as if they were giving a keynote at a Meta or Apple dev con, it becomes much easier to read. The commas and dramatic ellipses just fell into place as I read. Like the matrix, but instead of green kanji raining down, it’s readability-increasing punctuation. lol

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#88

Post by faitswulff »

cheschire wrote: post #48
mchusma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a two human PR requirement until recently we dropped it. It was slowing us down too much now the human developer creating the future is obviously writing it all with AI so they need to check it then depending on the feature and it’s use it requires a PR but it’s not universal and we’ve stepped up our automated test Tan X what it used to be it’s been so far fewer bugs better delivery

I, too, have noticed a degradation in my grammar when I converse too frequently with AI.

But is the grammar load bearing?

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#89

Post by epolanski »

jacobgold wrote: post #8

IMHO, Codex with Astra/Sol and Claude with Fable/Opus are all any professional programmer should be using in Sep 2026, if they can afford it. These models are still terrible compared to what we'd actually wish for, but they're the best available. If you can get away with using the $200/mo subscriptions, it's really not even a money thing for most professionals. Almost all of my work is now plan, generate, review, pla…

[flagged]

Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

#90

Post by sixtyj »

orphereus wrote: post #56
mchusma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had a two human PR requirement until recently we dropped it. It was slowing us down too much now the human developer creating the future is obviously writing it all with AI so they need to check it then depending on the feature and it’s use it requires a PR but it’s not universal and we’ve stepped up our automated test Tan X what it used to be it’s been so far fewer bugs better delivery

Are people getting burned out?

Getting burnout from LLM-assisted coding or any other activity is here.

What exhausts and leads to burnout, is probability.

Sometimes you get so much dopamine if it goes right.

And sometimes you feel like an idiot because LLM does so many mistakes even if you think that you prompt it right.

As the pace is so fast, you change your mind’s state so frequently and quickly that it may lead to a (mild) burnout.

Post reply on HN