I only wish my workplace had the same policy. I’m so tired of reviewing slop where the submitter has no idea what it’s even for.

For what it's worth, this is essentially the policy my current and most recent previous workplace followed. (My employers before that were pre-LLMs.)

If you are the one with your name on the PR, it's your code and you have to understand it. If you don't understand it at least well enough to speak intelligently about it, you aren't ready to submit it for review. If you ask Copilot, Cursor, or whatever to generate a PR for you, it still must be reviewed and approved by you and another engineer who acts as your reviewer.

I haven't heard a lot of pushback on this; it feels like common sense to me. It's effectively the same rules we'd use if somebody who wasn't an engineer wanted to submit code; they'd need to go through an engineer to do it.

LLM usage has increased our throughput and the quality of our code thus far, but without these rules (and people following the spirit of them, being bought in to their importance), I really don't think it would.

I encourage you to raise this policy with your management, if you think you can get them to listen, and demonstrate how it might help. I would be very frustrated if my colleagues were submitting AI-generated code without thinking it through.