I think the deeper need is a "self-review" flow.

People push AI-reviewed code like they wrote it. In the past, "wrote it" implies "reviewed it." With AI, that's no longer true.

I advocate for GitHub and other code review systems to add a "Require self-review" option, where people must attest that they reviewed and approved their own code. This change might seem symbolic, but it clearly sets workflows and expectations.

Yes, underthinking is rampant. Glancing at "AI" output is not reviewing code: you have to grok it (in the Heinlein sense) in order to treat it as your own.

Heck, doing a self review when you wrote the code catches stuff like forgetting debug prints.

I've been lucky to discover git relatively late and sublime merge relatively soon. It seems like separating the concern of editing and reviewing code is making me consider each more as separate thing.

It also makes me more comfortable figuring out how a project's pull acceptance are like (maybe due to how fast local ui is compared to web-based git). On the other hand, I can only run some basic git cli commands and can't quickly comprehend raw text-based diff, especially when encountering some linux patches from time to time.

We have it in a checklist in PR template. I can’t imagine a fiat class feature that would be much more meaningful. It surprised me to learn there are developers who have to be reminded to review their own code and test it, but does seem to help.

If someone was confident enough to push through an AI change without even reading/reviewing it themselves adding more buttons to the UI isn't going to change anything.

the tooling doesnt make it easy currently.

working at amazon, when I wanted to review code myself through the CR tool, Id still end up publishing it to the whole team and have to add some title shenanigans saying it was a self review or WIP and for others to not look at it yet

Self review is #1