Three +1s and a Prayer
minid.net ● Covered by 7 sources
Opinion — commentary, not a factual news event.
The author argues that traditional human code review is an imperfect historical workaround and that AI agents are now able to run deeper, more systematic checks than humans typically can. A typical pull request is described as about 2,500 lines reviewed for only 20–30 minutes, which the author says cannot provide exhaustive verification. As a result, the author expects teams to shift from relying on manual sampling and identity-based process to converting more judgment into repeatable automated search and verification.
Why it matters
Human code review is framed as a useful historical compromise that samples a change but cannot prove correctness—especially as agent-generated volume grows beyond human attention. The essay argues for moving repeatable standards into documentation, tests, constraints, and systematic agent review while keeping people focused on intent, product judgment, and social checks.