[evnp]

I'm legitimately curious - could you elaborate on the difference? Speaking as someone who has always preferred the commit-by-commit focus of a rebase instead of all-at-once merge conflict resolution, auditing all the changes together later doesn't sound more appealing than doing things incrementally.

[sdenton4]

It's far more sane to review a complete PR than to verify every small change. They are like dicey new interns - do you want to look over their shoulder all day, or review their code after they've had time to do some meaningful quantum of work?

[NitpickLawyer]

> It's far more sane to review a complete PR than to verify every small change.

Especially when the harness loop works if you let it work. First pass might have syntax issues. The loop will catch it, edit the file, and the next thing pops up. Linter issues. Runtime issues. And so on. Approving every small edit and reading it might lead to frustrations that aren't there if you just look at the final product (that's what you care about, anyway).

[vova_hn2]

The main difference in the current (theatrical) permission model is that the agent is blocked on waiting for your approval. So you can't just launch it and go do something else, because when you return you will see that nothing is done and it has just been waiting for your input all this time. You have to stare at the screen and do nothing, which is a really boring and unproductive way to spend time.

If you launch it in YOLO mode in a separate branch in a separate worktree (or, preferably, in total isolation), you can instead spend time reviewing changes from previous tasks or refining requirements for new tasks.

[dcre]

The choice isn't really between all at once and line by line. I always use accept all changes, but I make commits that I can review and consider in bigger pieces, but usually smaller than the full PR.