Use cheap models if your code is low value.
GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
21–30 of 120 posts
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#22IMHO, 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…
[deleted]
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#23AI 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…
> 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)?
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#24IMHO, 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…
With everything changing it's great to hear others have the same workflow. I added a snapshot step so I'm doing
plan, generate step 1, review, snapshot, generate step 2, review, snapshot...
That way I have a chance to diff with the previous iteration and clean up comments, modify skills, etc. also if it bonks on a step I'm one snapshot away from trying again...
Is there a place people share their workflows other than HN comments?
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#25IMHO, 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…
Use of closed models is unprofessional, and depending on your field negligent. The fact that it has been widely normalized does not make it less so. You're handing over your (presumably your customer/employers) data to an unaccountable third party which has demonstrated itself willing to commit criminal acts, and to take other people's data without permission. Your ability to continue to perform this work can be with…
AI token machine go brrr!
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#26IMHO, 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…
Use of closed models is unprofessional, and depending on your field negligent. The fact that it has been widely normalized does not make it less so. You're handing over your (presumably your customer/employers) data to an unaccountable third party which has demonstrated itself willing to commit criminal acts, and to take other people's data without permission. Your ability to continue to perform this work can be with…
I think that's a bit strong of an assertion. How many people use copilot daily under an enterprise agreement? I don't necessarily disagree in spirit, especially given the questionable data sanitization around the recent Navier-Stokes announcement, but most companies disclose huge amounts of data regularly to hopefully-trusted third parties. I think the internet -- and a good share of the world's commerce -- would grind to a halt if we suddenly stopped. Setting up, securing, and maintaining local models for even a small user base is non-trivial and there is way more demand than supply for that skillset right now.
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#27i think gpt 5.6 luna-max in particular is excellent for non long term agentic use
code reviews, unit tests, docs, whatever you dont want more expensive models working
i think the new muse contributor model is enticing too if you are not using it for private/sensitive stuff
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#28AI 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…
> 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)?
They shouldn't.
I personally would never dump a claude code response into a PR body an ask someone to address it. I can't believe any developer would find this to be appropriate or fulfilling the duty of reviewing code.
I think it's pretty clear that what you should do instead is go over the result and communicate to the PR author anything you think should be addressed. You don't just say "here are 8 things you might want to address but I cant actually speak to any of them."
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#29AI 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…
> 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.
Re: GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?
#30IMHO, 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…
Use of closed models is unprofessional, and depending on your field negligent. The fact that it has been widely normalized does not make it less so. You're handing over your (presumably your customer/employers) data to an unaccountable third party which has demonstrated itself willing to commit criminal acts, and to take other people's data without permission. Your ability to continue to perform this work can be with…
> Your ability to continue to perform this work can be withdrawn at any time for any (or no) reason.
Thanks to the fact that there are no widespread stories about this actually occurring in practice, at least not yet, people do not take it as a relevant risk at the moment.
> You have little ability to validate that the work is being performed as expected and isn't being silently nerfed or outright subverted based on competitive considerations, bribes, overactive 'safety', or cost management.
Yes, I agree that this is a real concern that many people might rightfully have. And I am unaware of any way to mitigate this concern while using black box AI models. Because the only thing that their creators can do is to tell their customers: "trust us". But there is no way to objectively verify whether they serve tainted AI model responses or not.