[sebasv_]

Same way that I would trust your review to be accurate. Because the reviewer has built a reputation for correctness.

Its not Claude doing the review. Its a human doing the review, but using Claude to do the reading. Its still on the human to ask the right questions to Claude.

[kalaksi]

For large changes that are not straightforward and include architectural decisions, I wouldn't trust Claude enough to not read most of the code myself. I'll have to read it to be able to understand it and ask about the decisions in detail anyway. And when I start to understand it, it's not uncommon to find out that the solution can be improved and simplified in many places, and after iterating, 25-30% of code disappears.

And trying to just hand-wave it to Claude, to somehow "improve it" or "simplify it", without detailed questions hasn't been very successful. It can work for some things, though.

[danparsonson]

So you'd produce the code using Claude, and then use Claude to verify it? Would you accept my review of my own code?

[fragmede]

Depends. Do you take pills that let you forget that you wrote the code so you can review that same code with fresh eyes that haven't seen that code before? Though you could just use ChatGPT to review the code that Claude wrote if that's really the issue.