[aidanlister]

This just sounds like you haven’t worked in a team environment in the last 12 months.

The ergonomics of doing this in pre-commit make no sense.

Spin up a PR in GitHub and get Cursor and/or Claude to do a code review — it’s amazing.

It’ll often spot bugs (not only obvious ones), it’ll utilise your agent.md to spot mismatched coding style, missing documentation, it’ll check sentry to see if this part of the code touches a hotspot or a LOC that’s been throwing off errors … it’s an amazing first pass.

Once all the issues are resolved you can mark the PR as ready for review and get a human to look big picture.

It’s unquestionably a huge time saver for reviewers.

And having the AI and human review take place with the same UX (comments attached to lines of code, being able to chat to the AI to explain decisions, having the AI resolve the comment when satisfied) just makes sense and is an obvious time saver for the submitter.

[Sharlin]

Stuff like coding style and missing documentation is what your basic dumb formatter and linter are supposed to do, using a LLM for such things is hilarious overkill and waste of electricity.

[bwfan123]

I think what has happened is that there are a whole lot of younger programmers who have not used tooling like linters and static analyzers. For them, when AI does the same thing it is a revelation.

[gerad]

Your linter can tell if a comment exists. AI can tell if it’s up to date.

[bwfan123]

When your linter or static analyser says something, you know exactly what it means. When AI says something - many a time, it doesnt make sense. And I use AI code review tools every day.

[wakawaka28]

It makes as much sense to use AI in pre-commit as it does to use a linter.

[mvanbaak]

why not have AI review your code BEFORE you share it with the team ? that shows so much more respect to the rest of the team then just throwing your code into the wild, only to change it because some robot tells you that X could be Y