The biggest problem with LLM reviews for me is not false positives, but authority. Younger devs are used to accepting bot comments as the ultimate truth, even when they are clearly questionable
Few things give me more dread than reviewing the mediocre code written by an overconfident LLM, but arguing in a PR with an overconfident LLM that its review comments are wrong is up there.
The battle I am fighting at the moment is that our glorious engineering team, who are the lowest bidding external outsourcer, make the LLM spew look pretty good. The reality of course is they are both terrible, but no one wants to hear that, only that the LLM is better than the humans. And that's only because it's the narrative they need to maintain.
Relative quality is better but the absolute quality is not. I only care about absolute quality.
I can’t agree more. I’m torn on LLM code reviews. On the one hand I think it is a place that makes a lot of sense and they can quickly catch silly human errors like misspelled variables and whatnot.
On the other hand the amount of flip flopping they go through is unreal. I’ve witnessed numerous instances where either the cursor bugbot or Claude has found a bug and recommended a reasonable fix. The fix has been implemented and then the LLM has argued the case against the fix and requested the code be reverted. Out of curiosity to see what happens I’ve reverted the code just to be told the exact same recommendation as in the first pass.
I can foresee this becoming a circus for less experienced devs so I turned off the auto code reviews and stuck them in request only mode with a GH action so that I can retain some semblance of sanity and prevent the pr comment history from becoming cluttered with overly verbose comments from an agent.
The biggest problem with LLM reviews for me is not false positives, but authority. Younger devs are used to accepting bot comments as the ultimate truth, even when they are clearly questionable
Few things give me more dread than reviewing the mediocre code written by an overconfident LLM, but arguing in a PR with an overconfident LLM that its review comments are wrong is up there.
The battle I am fighting at the moment is that our glorious engineering team, who are the lowest bidding external outsourcer, make the LLM spew look pretty good. The reality of course is they are both terrible, but no one wants to hear that, only that the LLM is better than the humans. And that's only because it's the narrative they need to maintain.
Relative quality is better but the absolute quality is not. I only care about absolute quality.
I can’t agree more. I’m torn on LLM code reviews. On the one hand I think it is a place that makes a lot of sense and they can quickly catch silly human errors like misspelled variables and whatnot.
On the other hand the amount of flip flopping they go through is unreal. I’ve witnessed numerous instances where either the cursor bugbot or Claude has found a bug and recommended a reasonable fix. The fix has been implemented and then the LLM has argued the case against the fix and requested the code be reverted. Out of curiosity to see what happens I’ve reverted the code just to be told the exact same recommendation as in the first pass.
I can foresee this becoming a circus for less experienced devs so I turned off the auto code reviews and stuck them in request only mode with a GH action so that I can retain some semblance of sanity and prevent the pr comment history from becoming cluttered with overly verbose comments from an agent.