My bottleneck moved from writing code to reviewing what the agents write. How do you review without just rubber-stamping?
A developer noted that their bottleneck shifted from writing code to reviewing agent-generated code, leading to concerns about rubber-stamping approvals. To manage this, they keep tasks small, request agent notes, and review tests first. They also use a review agent to flag messy code, which adds to the review load. The developer is seeking advice on balancing careful review with trusting agent output, questioning whether to read every line or trust certain changes more.
Time & source
Times shown in UTC
Display time zone: UTC
Local time zone unavailable; showing UTC.
PublishedOffset at this time: UTC+0Oct 29, 2026, 19:05 UTC
IngestedOffset at this time: UTC+0Oct 29, 2026, 22:00 UTC
- Published
- Oct 29, 2026, 19:05
- Ingested
- Oct 29, 2026, 22:00
- Source type
- Dev community
- Tier
- Community
- Source status
- Healthy
Tier is a per-source editorial setting, not a per-item score.
Since I started running a few agents in parallel I can get several changes ready in the time it used to take me to write one, and that part feels great. But now most of my day is reading diffs, and I've caught myself skimming a big one and approving it just because the tests passed. A few things help so far. I keep each task small so the diff fits on one screen, I ask the agent for a short note on what it changed and why before I read the code, and I read the tests first to see if they actually check the behavior I asked for. A review agent also flags old messy code nearby, which is nice, but then I have even more to read. I still feel like I'm the slow part and I'm not sure where the line is between careful review and just trusting it. How do you all handle this? Do you read every line, or do you trust some kinds of changes more than others?