Hi Tom, On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: > > > > > > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing > > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a brief > > > > description of how it works. > > > > > > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman > > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps a > > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does a > > > > review then adds its comments to its database. > > > > > > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it > > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and update > > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in > > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to make > > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent > > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice. > > > > > > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded considerably. > > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me, even > > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can imagine > > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful. > > > > > > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can ask > > > > me here. > > > > > > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new tools > > > > for code review. > > > > > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet have > > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was making > > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human > > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't see > > > any problems". > > > > > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass > > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been posting > > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is that > > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the agent > > > one is using. > > > > > > > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another topic. > > Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is > a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone > that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here > I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate. > > I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the 'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1, etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments). Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project. Regards, Simon
