We totally use it in CI. We were thoughtful in how we built our review bot and it catches a lot of issues before humans lay eyes on the code. Typically they are lower level code issues that humans would not have noticed. It's not the comprehensive review solution, which is why we still require some level of human attendance to the code, but it's very much worth using. We do set limits on PR size and description quality as well to mitigate the harsher AI slop issues.

▲

nonethewiser 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Notice you haven't even attempted to address why it's important to have in CI. We already agree AI PR reviews are good. But why should you add this new responsibility for the PR author of triaging feedback?

	▲	heurist 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Typically they are lower level code issues that humans would not have noticed The author does not triage the feedback. Review bot assesses priority and agents fix the issues the automated review discovers. Nothing is blocked by the bot, humans can ignore if they think the feedback isn't helpful. We use AI heavily in development but everyone has their own setup and way of approaching use. AI in PRs provides a consistent review layer beyond what the engineers do themselves, and catches a previously undiscovered issue in about 75% of the PRs.

▲

dlahoda 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

so I assembled orchestration which catches design issues, multilayer livenesssoundnesssecurity issues.

kind of high level.

did you noticed that astra started to write better comments which look as it understands something?

	▲	heurist 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Haven't had a chance to test astra vs 5.6 in these reviews yet. I've seen mixed feedback on astra generally so have hesitated in the upgrade. Have you tested and found any difference?