> automated review tools that publish comments without human review are not allowed

This seems like a curious choice. At my company we have both Gemini and cursor (I’m not sure which model under the hood on that) review agents available. Both frequently raise legitimate points. Im sure they’re abusable, I just haven’t seen it

one reason i can imagine for this choice is that human review distributes new knowledge among human maintainers. Automated review might discourage that valuable interaction.

The comment is an artefact of an inherently valuable process, not the sole objective. So I'd prefer code is reviewed by a human who maybe initiates a discussion with an agent. I'd hope this minor workflow detail encourages the human to take a more active lead, rather than risk mere ceremonial approval.

The policy isn’t about whether those tools raise good points. It’s about not letting agents act autonomously in project spaces. Human reviewed, opt in use is explicitly allowed.

An LLM is a plausibility engine. That can't be the final step of any workflow.