[colescodes]

Author here. This came out of the last couple of weeks at work, where review has crowded out writing code because teammates and agents both produce it faster than anyone reads it. The short version: review the approach before the lines, and give AI-generated changes less benefit of the doubt, since fluency no longer signals correctness.

[jr3592]

review the outcome, not the code... if the world continues to be dominated by AI coding agents, the code will increasingly become irrelevant.

[BetterThanSober]

The outcome might not be deterministic (edge-case, race condition, weird error path). This is also true with human but at least a decent engineer can sit in a review board walking through their reasoning on why did they do what they did and their rationale

Good luck asking AI on "why use X, why X and not Y", yes they will answer but it is based on their current, ad-hoc deductions, not their past reasoning

I guess the same can be said for legacy code base where the original author had left years ago and currently running a kebab shop in Dagestan but my point still remains

[colescodes]

The Dagestan kebab shop guy left a trail though.

Commits, has a PR thread, maybe a ticket. There's something to dig into, and an agent is decent at excavating it.

Ask the agent why X and not Y about its own code and you get a fresh answer made up on the spot with no connection to what happened when it was written.