[dogleash]

This is such an optimistic article ignoring the problem. There is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of pull requests.

More static checking and AI analysis of changes are good things, everything else being equal. But they're not sufficient to offset the additional review demands of AI pull requests.

> This layered model keeps PRs moving without lowering standards.

> Accountability stays with the human. But the human review becomes more about judgment and less about mechanical inspection when baseline checks are already handled.

> But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate. If review throughput is seen a bottleneck, don't saddle people with accountability for changes they're pressured to let through.

[claudiacsf]

In teams where there is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of PRs there shouldn't be much of a bottleneck problem. They've solved it by lowering the bar. The article is for the teams who have decided the bug and incident cost of doing that isn't worth it, and now have to absorb the volume anyway.

>But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

>>Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate.

The dancing is IMO a reasonable analysis of the state of the code review today. Yes, there are systems in the works but today there isn't yet a good enough system of automated checks to simply let code through. Because then this happens https://pages.faros.ai/hubfs/AI_Engineering_Report_2026_The_...