Relaying one LLMs output to another is very poor use of a human’s time.
I'm specifically not asking you to run your LLM lose on it. I'm asking you to add the specific knowledge that you have that the author/LLM doesn't to the review. I tried to jot down such examples in the post.
> What you bring is the knowledge that the author nor the LLM doesn't know.
How can you possibly know what relevant context to provide the LLM unless you read the 10k loc? Now you've wasted double the time.
But whatever you see in review, you must add to a review checklist for the agent. You do this so you never have to check for that thing again.
Example: https://github.com/cadamsdotcom/CodeLeash/blob/main/.claude/...
(Use AGENTS.md or whatever agent docs you use, to tell your agent to review after it’s done working but before it stops.)
Congratulations! After you added hundreds more items to the agent’s review checklist, that work you did to build the checklist has automated the first 90% of the work. The second 90% is still.. reviewing the code. So no, you can’t escape code review.
It’s an asymptote. And it’s part of your job as a professional.
I'll believe that once AIs stop outputting garbage code that spends 15 lines defensively checking for situations that can never occur or re-implementing their own URL-parsing logic instead of using a library.
Maybe Fable is better at this? Maybe there's a set of prompts or skills that will reduce these tendencies?
voidUpdate•1h ago