[etothet]

"Letting the agents loop can result in more changes than expected, which are usually welcome..."

If "more changes than expected" means "out of scope", then I disagree. Those types of changes are exactly one of the things that's best to avoid whether code is being written by a person or an LLM.

[axldelafosse]

It doesn’t mean that they are always out of scope, rather than the reviewer can be nitpicking (like humans do) and instead of addressing the comment in a follow-up PR, the change gets addressed in the same PR. So not necessarily out of scope, but it can add up and make it harder for a human to review.

That’s why I’m wondering if we should instruct the agents to act more like humans would: if the change can be done in a follow-up PR, this is probably what an experienced engineer would do.