I don't think this approach is wise.

Concentrate on code quality, and whether it does what it needs to do. Not whether it was written by AI or not.

Heavykenny an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks, I actually concentrated on improving code quality, the patterns I flagged are poor design choices that humans wouldn’t write. Examples are duplicated functions doing same thing, dead or redundant codes etc. These builds up and degrade the codebase over time.

▲

axod an hour ago | parent [-]

> ...are poor design choices that humans wouldn’t write.

They certainly do in my experience. Maybe you've been lucky and haven't worked with really messy programmers.

	▲	Heavykenny an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I have worked and seen these in code reviews but the issue now is code reviews are overwhelming and non existent in some cases.

▲

bigfishrunning an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm interpreting this not as a "catch ai submissions gotcha" tool, but as a "last pass in review catch mistakes AI made that i may have missed" tool. Having more linters is a good thing IMO (I say this as someone who doesn't use AI to generate code, but works with people who do and has to review a lot of AI generated code)

	▲	tolawuwo 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly, that’s what it does. You can see the tool as a quality gate you put in place to ensure that any AI generated code meets a standard.