At a scale, I don't see a net negative of AI merging "shit by itself" if the developer (or the agent) is ensuring sufficient e2e, integration and unit test coverage prior to every merge, if in return I get my team to crank out features at a 10x speed.

The reality is that probably 99.9999% of code bases on this earth (but this might drop soon, who knows) pre-date LLMs and organizing them in a way that coding agents can produce consistent results from sprint to sprint, will need a big plumbing work from all dev teams. And that will include refactoring, documentation improvements, building consensus on architectures and of course reshaping the testing landscape. So SWE's will have a lot of dirty work to do before we reach the aforementioned "scale".

However, a lot of platforms are being built from ground-up today in a post-CC (claude code) era . And they should be ready to hit that scale today.

No, it just prepares the PR - it doesn't automatically merge. That would be very dangerous, imho!

Someone’s gonna think about wiring all this up to Linear or Jira, and there’ll be a whole new set of vulnerabilities created from malicious bug reports.

In some workflows it's helpful for the full loop to be automated so that the agent can test if what's done works.

And you can do a more exhaustive test later, after the agents are done running amok to merge various things.

I’m not saying this is, but if I were a malicious state actor, that’s exactly the kind of thing I’d like to see in widespread use.

I don’t think “ready to merge” necessarily means the agent actually merges. Just that it’s gone as far as it can automatically. It’s up to you whether to review at that point or merge, depending on the project and the stakes.

If there are CI failures or obvious issues that another AI can identify, why not have the agent keep going until those are resolved? This tool just makes that process more token efficient. Seems pretty useful to me.

No,

The linked page explains how this fits into a development workflow

eg.

> A reviewer wrote “consider using X”… is that blocking or just a thought?

> AMBIGUOUS - Needs human judgment (suggestions, questions)

Lol, I thought it did a reasonably good job, but to each their own - this was the difference between releasing the project so others could use it with decent documentation, or not releasing and just using it internally. :)

I found that it has improved overall code quality significantly, at the cost of somewhat slower velocity. But it has meant fewer interruptions where the ai is just waiting for me, or saying "Everything is ready!" only to find that ci/cd failed or there were clearly existing comments/issues.

I did! The issue however, is having a clear, deterministic method of defining when the code review was 'done'. So the hooks can fire off subagents, but they are non-deterministic and often miss vital code review comments - especially ones that are marked in an inline comment, or are marked as 'Out of PR Scope' or 'Out of range of the file' - which are often the MOST important comments to address!

So gtg builds all of that in and deterministically determines whether or not there are any actionable comments, and thus you can block the agent from moving forward until all actionable comments are thoroughly reviewed, acted upon or acknowledged, at which point it will change state and allow the PR to be merged.