Replace the Trivial, Augment the Difficult
A rule in the code-review engine I built caught an idiom I've been writing for years and can no longer see. That's the small half.
A rule in the code-review engine I built caught an idiom I've been writing for years and can no longer see. That's the small half.
A colleague sent me the cleanest bug report I've had all year. He'd taken an open change, squashed it, and opened it again — same content, byte for byte, as…
A change lands in review with everything green. The rules pass, the types check, the tests are close to the ones I'd have asked for.
The business intent, what we're accomplishing, goes in the PR description. Solved problem; we've had a text box for it since forever.
The request was: let me arrange these panes how I like, give the arrangement a name, and hand it back to me tomorrow on a different laptop.
One evening an agent working in this repo killed an idea of mine for failing a rule. The kill was well argued and it cited the rule by line number, the way…
The first stage of my code reviewer hands the next one a two-field object: a rule id and a citation. Not its reasoning. Not the file it just read. Two fields.
It looks at a deprecation deadline declared in a schema, calls new Date(), compares, and if the deadline has passed it fails.
I had already published the warning: if a model only judges what a scanner shortlisted, a site the scanner fails to flag is a false negative nobody ever sees.
My reviewer caught a deleted flush call three times out of three, and said nothing about eight of thirteen removals in any run.
I had a harness measuring whether a set of skills helped a cheap model. It came back negative: no lift worth the tokens. I believed it.
I asked an agent which of three approaches to take. It gave me three — each described accurately, tradeoffs and costs and failure modes, all of it right.
A good rule set grows. Mine has grown — tested against a whole corpus of real PRs and code — into something too big to hand a model all at once, and that's…
The reviewer is the visible product: it reads a diff, applies a rule corpus tested against real PRs and code, and ships the findings worth a person's attention.
Ask a model to summarise a document and you can hold the result against the document — the raw is right there.
My code reviewer does far more work than it ships. Scouts cast a wide net — anything that might be a violation.
I built an eval to tell me whether my agent's skills were earning their place. For a while it said they weren't — clean, green, confident.
A newer engineer left a note on my pull request: this array should be readonly. He was right.
Sixteen minutes and sixteen dollars to surface four low-severity nits, most of it spent scanning for rules rather than judging code.
Advice to keep reading assumes you built the judgment first. If AI writes the first draft, the cohort coming up is asked to keep what it never built.
Two reviewers, the same commit — a fat change, a few thousand lines. One was a deep reviewer I own, running a portfolio of judgment rules tested across a…
An AI reviewer finds three bugs on a real PR. Tell it to expect four or five and it finds more — but only more of what it could already see.
I caught myself telling an AI, "you're starting to sound like me." My cadence, my hedges, the figures I reach for — it had picked them up and was handing them…
I had a figure I liked. Writing about giving the AI the why instead of the what, I'd reached for a bespoke image — mine, a little odd, exactly the shape of…
I spent a stretch trying to make an AI code reviewer cheaper without letting it miss more. Cost and recall, two dials pulling against each other.
The reflex, when a model meets something long, is to make it shorter. Summarise the PR, TL;DR the paper, have the agent review the diff and hand back the…
Ask a code-review tool how good it is and you'll get a precision answer: of the things it flagged, how many were real.
I told the agent fidelity came first. It optimised for cost anyway, for an embarrassing reason — cost had an estimator and a guardrail, and fidelity had a…
Read that definition again. It's one of the most widely-cited code-review standards telling reviewers how to flag a small issue: say the author should fix it…
In the Second World War, the Statistical Research Group was asked where to add armour on bombers, and handed the damage data from the planes that came back …
A model handed me a clean answer once. Well structured, sure of itself, and wrong — and nothing in how it was written gave that away.
The goal was never a cheaper reviewer. It was finding everything that is really there while posting nothing that isn't — and that objective, not the budget…
I asked the agent to review a diff. Two skills woke up and started fighting over whose job it was.
You wrote a skill. It's good. Now you want it to lean on another skill — call it, require it, ship the two together so installing yours pulls in the one it…
Here's the pitch, and it's a good one. Vibe-coded slop is only the symptom; the disease underneath is context debt — the steady loss of what the code means…
A fast eval told me a restructured module was clearly better. Comfortable margin. I ran it again to be sure, got the same verdict, promoted the new version…
Sakana AI shipped Fugu with a clean pitch: one endpoint that routes your task across a pool of models — calling itself recursively — and handles selection…
I was building a code-review tool. Nothing fancy — read the diff, flag what's wrong, the job I do by hand a dozen times a week.
A while back, I stopped reading the AI's end-of-task summaries and started watching the diffs. They came through faster than I could have typed them.
A description is a compression, and it drops the omissions it doesn't know it made — the case not handled, the check not added.
Linus Torvalds vibe-coded the visualizer and hand-wrote the audio math. One repository, the whole argument — writing code was never the scarce skill.
Sixteen experienced developers finished 19% slower with AI and believed they were 20% faster. The feeling of a fast session tracks fluency, not distance.
The AI reads from your codebase before it writes into it. Whatever's already there — your conventions, your shortcuts, your best work and your worst — is the…