A few weeks ago, I shared LlamaPReview (an AI PR reviewer) here on HN and received great feedback [1]. Now I'm trying to understand how experienced developers prioritize different aspects of code review to make the tool more effective.
When you open a PR, what's the first thing you check? Is it:
Current results show an interesting split between "Detailed Technical Analysis" and "Critical Findings", but I'd love to hear HN's perspective:
1. What makes you trust/distrust a PR at first glance?
2. How do you balance between architectural concerns and implementation details?
3. What information do you wish was always prominently displayed?
Your insights will directly influence how we structure AI Code Review to match real developers' thought processes.
A few weeks ago, I shared LlamaPReview (an AI PR reviewer) here on HN and received great feedback [1]. Now I'm trying to understand how experienced developers prioritize different aspects of code review to make the tool more effective.
When you open a PR, what's the first thing you check? Is it:
- Overview & Architecture Changes - Detailed Technical Analysis - Critical Findings & Issues - Security Concerns - Testing Coverage - Documentation - Deployment Impact
I've set up a quick poll here: https://github.com/JetXu-LLM/LlamaPReview-site/discussions/9
Current results show an interesting split between "Detailed Technical Analysis" and "Critical Findings", but I'd love to hear HN's perspective:
1. What makes you trust/distrust a PR at first glance? 2. How do you balance between architectural concerns and implementation details? 3. What information do you wish was always prominently displayed?
Your insights will directly influence how we structure AI Code Review to match real developers' thought processes.
[1] Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996859