91–100 of 123 posts
$0.10 extra per pr review is nothing. What software company is willing to accept worse reviews and less bugs found to save 10 cents?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My trick for using Opus is using it exclusively as a subagent managed by Fable. "Use Opus subagents for this work where possible" is all it takes generally. In my experience Astra/Sol are both quite good as workhorses, but not at Fable's level. I use them every day very successfully and I'm very picky.
I used to do this but recently I switched to having Fable 5.1 spawn forks of itself rather than Opus subagents. Yes it's more expensive but you don't pay for reads that already happened pre-fork, and you end up doing less rework since Fable agents are just much smarter.
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]
Midwit: "No, you see, you need a deterministic 12-stage multi-agent orchestration framework with vector embedding semantic routing, and five open weight models with custom harnesses!"
Genius: "Just use Claude and Codex"
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…
I started my first paid subscription ($100/mo) last week, and now I want to upgrade and I can't :-(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is so true. Cognitive brute-force always when dealing with AI.
Any model is good enough. Even tiny local models can provide some value and their false positive rate is still relatively low and warrants a proper reply.
I get remarkably good results using any recent OpenAI model using the codex-rs harness pointing at a built checkout of the PR. The models use the available tools (i.e. the shell) to understand the repo. I get some false positives and some false negatives, but I don’t believe for a second that I would get comparable performance using a dramatically less capable harness. (Also, the models read the short AGENTS.md for some context as to what’s going on. The prompt I use is about one sentence. I don’t bother with the built in review tool.)