I just used Fable to thoroughly review a PR, and it came up with 5 "Findings that block approval".

I went through each one through the code path (a couple were already considered during implementation), and while all 5 were theoretically accurate, 0 of them were actually reachable.

I wrote them back to Claude point by point and got this back: "I checked all five claims against the code. Your list is correct on all five. I downgrade my verdict: none of the five findings blocks approval. Details and one subtlety below."

This is a usual experience with SOTA models for me and others in my team.

Don't get me wrong, I use it daily; sometimes as a crutch, other times as an accelerator, mostly as a validator/peace of mind. I however don't think that neither velocity or quality is meaningfully changed. But I do spend much more time arguing with a machine.

This!! the amount of times that has happened to me in PR. A lot of the times its my fault as I haven't given the agent all of the context ( sometimes intentionally to cross check if it would reach to the same conclusion as me without additional info) but as soon as I give it all the context it would then back track on most of the blockers.