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

121–126 of 126 posts

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

#121

Post by pdntspa »

epolanski wrote: post #85
MattDamonSpace wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the way memory systems work, I can see the value in having a different person's AI conduct the review as that AI's 'memory' is going to have a slightly different perspective aligned with the developer piloting it

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

#122

Post by OttoZ05 »

asdfman123 wrote: post #113
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…

Nah, we have AI code review at Google and it is shockingly good at catching bugs no one would have noticed. I absolutely depend on it now.

Curious, which kind of model is used ? do y'all prefer using a lightweight model or a more capable one for code review ?

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

#123

Post by keithnz »

stefangordon wrote: post #86
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…

This is where we landed too. It works remarkably well. AI guidance is really the crucial thing here. I know a lot of people don't like this, think it's really bad, think it just results in slop... but it doesn't or at least never results in dead end slop. If you find what you get out of AI is weak in some area, then get it to focus on making sure that it does a better job, give it more guardrails / guidance etc till you are happy with the result.

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

#124

Post by oblio »

echelon wrote: post #116
holoduke wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be a token burner setup. Nice if you really got it to work. Now also add business agents that come up with new features based on actual research. Your automated humanless company is almost there.

They're making money, which is more than most ICs living in cost centers can say. The human code monkey sometimes thinks too highly of the task of coding. That's never once been the job to be done. Every engineer is going to become a master of understanding and measuring need, opportunity cost, organizational support and headwinds, political will, etc. These are the true features of the job. The coding part will fall…

This all assumes LLMs can maintain a steady state of code while extending it.

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

#125

Post by oblio »

rationalist wrote: post #96
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…

Unfortunately ChatGPT just stopped allowing people to upgrade to the $200/mo subscription. I started my first paid subscription ($100/mo) last week, and now I want to upgrade and I can't :-(

Hardware capacity limitations?

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

#126

Post by JeremyNT »

sroussey wrote: post #120
stefangordon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Should this not all happen before the PR is created?

My question as well. Why is this happening in ci/ci? Why aren't contributors performing the automated review and correction step locally?

The only answer I can imagine is that it supports reviewing patches from people who aren't using AI or review by humans but parent doesn't mention this.

Post reply on HN