If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
1–10 of 203 posts
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#2> bikeshedding function names
... Function names compose much of the API.
The API is the structure of the codebase.
This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow.
It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#3> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I think I'd actually have a use for an AI that could receive my empty public APIs (such as a C++ header file) as an input and produce a first rough implementation. Maybe this exists already, I don't know because I haven't done any serious vibe coding.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#4> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I think I'd actually have a use for an AI that could receive my empty public APIs (such as a C++ header file) as an input and produce a first rough implementation. Maybe this exists already, I don't know because I haven't done any serious vibe coding.
Yeah it can, though rough is definitely the word.
And sometimes the LLM just won't go in the direction you want, but that's OK - you just have to go write those bits of code.
It can be suprising where it works and where it doesn't.
Just go with those first suggestions though and the code will end up rough.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#5> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I really disagree with this too, especially given the article's next line:
> ...You’ll be forever tweaking individual lines of code, asking for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter, bikeshedding function names, and so on. At the same time, you’ll miss the opportunity to guide the AI away from architectural dead ends.
I think a good review will often do both, and understand that code happens at the line level and also the structural level. It implies a philosophy of coding that I have seen be incredibly destructive firsthand — committing a bunch of shit that no one on a team understands and no one knows how to reuse.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#6> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I think I'd actually have a use for an AI that could receive my empty public APIs (such as a C++ header file) as an input and produce a first rough implementation. Maybe this exists already, I don't know because I haven't done any serious vibe coding.
As long as you're reinventing the wheel (implementing some common pattern because you don't want to pull in an entire dependency), that kind of AI generation works quite well. Especially if you also have the AI generate tests for its code, so you can force it to iterate on itself while it gets things wrong the first couple of tries. It's slow and resource intensive, but it'll generate something mostly complete most of the time.
I'm not sure if you're saving any time there, though. Perhaps if you give an LLM task before ending the work day so it can churn away for a while unattended, it may generate a decent implementation. There's a good chance you need to throw out the work too; you can't rely on it, but it can be a nice bonus if you're lucky.
I've found that this only works on expensive models with large context windows and limited API calls, though. The amount of energy wasted on shit code that gets reverted must be tremendous.
I hope the AI industry makes true on its promise that it'll solve the whole inefficiency problem because the way things are going now, the industry isn't sustainable.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#7> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I think I'd actually have a use for an AI that could receive my empty public APIs (such as a C++ header file) as an input and produce a first rough implementation. Maybe this exists already, I don't know because I haven't done any serious vibe coding.
You can do this already, the most useful things to help with this are either writing tests or having it write tests and telling it how to compile and see error messages so you can let it loop.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#8> bikeshedding function names ... Function names compose much of the API. The API is the structure of the codebase. This isn't some triviality you can throw aside as unimportant, it is the shape that the code has today, and limits and controls what it will have tomorrow. It's how you make things intuitive, and it is equally how you ensure people follow a correct flow and don't trap themselves into a security bug.
I really disagree with this too, especially given the article's next line: > ...You’ll be forever tweaking individual lines of code, asking for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter, bikeshedding function names, and so on. At the same time, you’ll miss the opportunity to guide the AI away from architectural dead ends. I think a good review will often do both, and understand that code happens at the line level and also t…
> for a .reduce instead of a .map.filter...
This is distinctly not the api, but an implementation detail.
Personally, i can ask colleagues to change function names, rework hierarchy, etc. But leave this exact example be, as it does not have any material difference difference - regardless of my personal preference.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#9If you are good at code review, you will also be good at not using AI agents.
Re: If you are good at code review, you will be good at using AI agents
#10Code review is part of the job, but one of the least enjoyable parts. Developers like _writing_ and that gives the most job satisfaction. AI tools are helpful, but inherently increases the amount of code we have to review with more scrutiny than my colleagues because of how unpredictable - yet convincing - it can be. Why did we create tools that do the fun part and increase the non-fun part? Where are the "code-review" agents at?