On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >
Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI" Or would it be like "AI reviewed this and it looks fine" Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :) Thanks!
