"Plan out the change. Structure the plan so that it can be broken into individual PR's that each covers a single logical part of the change. Aim for less than 500 lines per PR unless the change is trivial and mechanical." (with a lower end model you need to be a lot more precise; with a frontier model you only really need to let it know you care about the PR size)

... in your prompts, coupled with gating PR creation on passing a stringent automated code review that also reviews it on whether or not it adheres to the rules you set regarding complexity of the PR, solves that problem without hiding the complexity.

If you have 230 file changes, that is a process failure unless they're purely obviously committing purely e.g. linter cleanups.

My dev branch got broken when I rebased to main after a week of drift.

I had to bisect over around a million commits to the monorepo to find the culprit.

Code is there to be read and understood by the human developers who come later.

The git history is a similar record, that's why the commits that make it to main (the squashed PRs) should cover one(ish) thing each and be self contained.

Something covering 230 files should be a mechanical change like running a linter or the AI is moving an API from one signature to another.

If an LLM generated a 230 file change they are also capable of going back and breaking it up.

One thing they are bad at is comments that are succinct since they almost only ever add words.