The more I use coding agents, the more I think we’re reviewing them wrong. With a human PR, I mostly ask: Is the code good? With an AI PR, I’m asking different questions: Did it stay inside the task? Did it quietly skip an edge case? Did it actually run the tests it claimed? Did it touch files it had no reason to touch? Did it solve the real problem, or just the easy version? CI tells me whether the code passes. It doesn’t tell me whether the agent behaved correctly. So I’m curious: If every AI-generated PR had a small “trust brief” attached, what would you actually want in it? Not a giant report. Not another dashboard. Just the few things that would make review less forensic. For example: original task approved scope files touched tests actually run missing evidence suspicious out-of-scope changes “look here first” reviewer notes Would that help, or would you ignore it like another noisy bot comment? Where should something like this live — PR comment, GitHub check, CLI output, or nowhere? submitted by /u/Few-Ad-1358
Originally posted by u/Few-Ad-1358 on r/ClaudeCode
You must log in or # to comment.