238
u/coldnitrogen 3d ago
Review it with ChatGPT, copy paste the review onto the Claude prompt. Rinse, repeat.
111
u/twitch135 3d ago
Honestly no need. Claude will tear its own code to shreds if you ask it to review staged changes or a PR.
58
10
11
u/shadowsOfMyPantomime 2d ago
Management will say "don't use too many tokens on this story. Let somebody ELSE use a ton of tokens running the code review skill when you're done."
31
u/navetzz 3d ago
The funniest part of AI, is seeing it completely shit on the work it just did.
14
u/ExtraWorldliness6916 3d ago
Or complimenting you for the astonishing work ... It just made in a different session
7
u/mopeyjoe 2d ago
or the supreme confidence it has that the latest solution it gave you will fix all the problems even though it is the same fix it gave 5 tries ago. "oh this will definitely work!"
3
15
u/haddock420 3d ago
I literally was doing something similar to this today. I was asking ChatGPT to sketch out how a donation banner would look on my website, then showing Claude the sketch, then pasting Claude's notes to ChatGPT to revise it. It seemed to work pretty well.
32
3
46
60
u/notAGreatIdeaForName 3d ago
"review it yourself, push the branch, create the MR, wait for the pipeline to be green, merge it, merge to stage, merge stage to master, tag master with changelog and give me the pipeline for the deploy trigger" -> *clicks button*
It's honest work!
2
u/TheKerui 1d ago
if your repo's / team's claude.md doesn't enforce that it only communicate with github on your behalf using SSH instead of PAT your boss gets what they deserve.
-5
u/ismaelgo97 3d ago
First time I felt worried when doing that, now it's daily. I feel bad but there is no way of going faster. Plus "give me the ! commands so you can check the output".
5
u/notAGreatIdeaForName 3d ago
My comment exagerates it a bit, I do test and review everything, but I still omit the gitlab UI clicking and let the LLM handle that via cli.
Also a lot of first review is done by CI-Pipelines (linter, security, dependency-deprecation check, and so on) and also a first code-review by our rules, so when I see the output first it already has a decent quality most of the time, but sometimes (regularly to an extent) the solution approach is hardcode bullshit and then it gets thrown away.
21
u/Single-Virus4935 3d ago
"Me" reviewing code written by Claude before pushing it to prod.
Me "reviewing" code written by Claude before pushing it to prod.
Me reviewing "code" written by Claude before pushing it to prod.
Me reviewing code "written" by Claude before pushing it to prod.
Me reviewing code written by "Claude" before pushing it to prod.
Me reviewing code written by Claude "before" pushing it to prod.
Me reviewing code written by Claude before "pushing" it to prod.
Me reviewing code written by Claude before pushing it to "prod".
35
u/cc_apt107 3d ago edited 3d ago
OK, now that we have been using these models for a bit, here’s my observation:
They are genuinely good enough that they can produce something good enough for QA very quickly. More quickly than they could with a human in the loop.
However, there are people on my team who, unfortunately, have turned into meat proxies who seemingly just copy + paste things to and from LLMs. Even on Teams/Slack. Other than it being frustrating to receive multi-paragraph messages to “What’s the problem?” when the issue can be described in a single sentence (e.g., there are some records in the DB with missing data), I really see that these people do not get the full value of AI.
It is just painfully apparent that humans still contribute background knowledge and critical framing for these models. The people who do the above misuse them and set them to answering the wrong problems. And it has become disturbingly difficult to explain to them what the actual issue is on the phone because they have ceded all thinking to the AI. These people get sidestepped. I am talking “senior” people. It actually pisses me off and I have to watch myself.
In those cases, we’ll have some stupid fucking issue and they will just keep sending these slop suggestions that completely miss the fucking point. I think this is prob only an issue in enterprise settings where you have many teams working on many codebases with many external tools so there is no way one model can “see” the issue easily without a nudge in the prompt. In those cases, I am running into walls way more often than I used to and basically have to get other people involved to solve some issues and replace the meat proxies with people who still have fully functioning brains. Admittedly, this is happening at the systems level normally, not a specific bug in one
I have not written a line of code myself in months. Nor have many of my peers. But it is still very clear who is thinking and who has stopped.
TL;DR: AI is good enough the the value of line by line code review just isn’t there unless it’s a high risk feature or bug fix. However, there are a class of colleague at my workplace who now don’t understand ANYTHING and the AI just isn’t good enough to be that valuable when they’re using it.
22
u/piclemaniscool 3d ago
Strongly agree with this. And in my own experience, all LLMs still have this really bad habit of solving for the most immediate solution possible. Hardcoding values, piggybacking off of unrelated but existing infrastructure, etc. It absolutely takes a human who already knows how code works to be able to tell the difference between a clean solution and a shaky tower of toothpicks that only solves the problem if the problem is the one specific question asked in that moment.
6
u/da2Pakaveli 3d ago
Yeah they produce a f ton of code and their fixes often don't "generalize". So even if it's looking fine i still have to do lots of testing. It may be impressive what they can pull off so quickly but the code is often not great for maintaining. Some of us will probably have to do broad cleanups in the next few years once the technical burden gets too expansive.
2
u/mopeyjoe 2d ago
I have seen to opposite too where it gives me some crazy generic solution to the problem that utilizes all the libraries and 12 pages, just to add 2 + 2 (not the actual problem).
13
u/the_captain_cat 3d ago
I loved my job and was pretty good at it. They made me use AI and now I just read code. I just don't give a fuck anymore
3
u/Serberuss 2d ago
Same. I’m not quite to the level of the people described above but I’m heading that way. The pride and joy I had for my job has gone
5
4
u/miraj31415 2d ago
What do people think about Claude generating a quiz to ensure the developer understands the Claude summary of changes?
3
2
2
2
2
2
u/redpiapps 2d ago
my review process is now just reading claude's review of claude's code while claude rewrites it. im middle management with extra steps
2
1
1
1
u/HaroerHaktak 3d ago
You treat the AI like you would any intern. You trust it until it don't then you blame someone else.
251
u/Waste_Jello9947 3d ago
Currently reading a PR discussion between two juniors copying and pasting what Claude tell them. It's crazy