On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 11:12 PM Manu Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I believe most of us are now using AI to author and review PRs. While it is > fast and efficient, I have a few concerns regarding how we use it for code > reviews. > > Recently, I have noticed increasingly lengthy AI-generated comments. > Dissecting these comments to find the root issue takes significant time. Why > not hand over the job to AI? Yes, I do this all the time but I still have to > review its proposed action plan. If that plan doesn't make sense, I must > trace back to the original review. Furthermore, conflicting comments from > different AI reviewers can cause an inefficient loop, as each tool operates > on different context. I'm not sure human reviewers ever review these AI > comments before posting them. I'm also unsure this process remains > cost-effective given the token expenses. > > When I use AI to review a PR, I prefer to read its findings (you feel the > pain immediately), rephrase the valid points in my own words, and post them > manually.
Yeah, I do the same but I don't rephrase it if the AI wording is better(most of the time), using AI nowadays is not something to be ashamed of, the key is not to publish review comments without understanding them yourself. > > Would this approach be a better way for us to utilize AI reviewers? I would > appreciate your thoughts. This approach seems reasonable to me. I think what you're recommending is not posting AI-generated comments without reviewing and understanding them first, but I think it's hard to enforce that in practice. :-( > > Disclosure: This email was polished by AI. > > Best regards, > Manu > -- Regards Junwang Zhao
