Several comments here touch on the core problem: agents are writing more code than we can review. Seniors have never had enough time to review, and the prolific output from coding agents is making it worse. Moreover, the code is almost always good. So you're reviewing a tsunami of pretty good code, which means you get review fatigue and the whole thing just becomes theater.

For me, this means the checks have to be more than just "I looked at it". There are two things that happen before I ever see it: first, as others have mentioned, I have a model from a different family review it with well-defined criteria. Same-family reviewers share bias, so it must be a different one. Second, I have a core set of deterministic gates (like lint, but also unit tests) that must run. In either case, failures go back to the coding agent.

And only then do I bother. But I really don't read everything. If it is bog-standard CRUD operations, the agents are pretty good at that, especially if they are using mature packages. I focus on critical things, like how it enforces permissions.

This works well for me, though it leaves one major issue untouched: whether this is worth building. The agents tend to be a bit overeager, so I have to do a lot of work up front to make sure the output will add value. The gates can only check the artifact, not my intent.