HN

Comments (176)

• Menu

  status_quo69
  No wonder most people at Anthropic believe our jobs are in jeopardy, they've already made a system wherein the machines are treating them like pets.I really don't get the tendency here from Anthropic to describe what's most likely churn? A high pressure amount of changes/PRs a day on a TUI to wrap a while loop? I'm not going to be a reductionist here so I'm going to cut it off there, I'm positive that the complexity of handling multiple terminal emulators is something that needs some handling (even if doing their own rendering engine was a self made problem). Yes I've vibe coded my own harness from scratch without writing any of it, I still know how it works.I'm also not sure that they addressed point 2 in any actual capacity? They say "the system verifies itself" which is cool and is something that automated testing has done for decades, but they eschew the mental model of how the system works as a whole and prefer instead to have the LLM focus and summarize a slice of the system when they need to know about it or ask for it. But.... That's not knowledge? That's just search a la google? And thus seems to be subject to the same problems where the quality of your search dictates the quality of your knowledge that you surface at any given time?N.B. Changed "1000 PRs" to "A high pressure amount" to be vague since the article is vague here on what CC undergoes.
• maxgashkov
  I'd be more interested to read on what 10% of the code is still getting written by humans and how it doesn't become a bottleneck at the pace they described.
• Menu

  mk12
  I saw someone say the other day (in response to another blog post being well written) that Anthropic employees have a rule against using AI for writing/external comms? That seems clearly not the case here, normal people don't write like this:> Most of the path is automated; a person's attention goes where the risk is> The eval grows with every incident, and every change to the reviewer is scored against all of it.
• vb-8448
  No human can stay on par with 30k pull requests per day ... they simply don't have control on what's going on and rely on AI itself to do the job.PS: I really want to know what is the churn rate (and the cost per LOC) here. My gut is saying the cost per LOC is insane, and they are basically rewriting over and over the same code.
• Menu

  grey-area
  At 30k commits a day, is there anything that can meaningfully be called review?
• koolba
  > Low - Docs, copy, internal-only features, additive changes behind a flag> None required once automated review and security checks are greenHow anybody can let an LLM write docs and not even read them is pure insanity.
• Menu

  YmFzZTY0ZGFkZHk
  And so the wildly unprofitable AI company explains how it token maxes it's code and review process.Authors should really try and view this article from the perspective of someone who has to think about cost to use the models.
• mstaoru
  Before all came to this, I've been promoting reviews at $dayjob not as gatekeeping but as method to exchange information and build more team spirit. We are an internal service team working by "projects", which makes us a very disjointed team with barely any communication. (Part of it is also German work culture.)And now this. Suffice to say, my efforts did not bear fruit. I feel more isolated than ever before.
• vavkamil
  > Security gets its own automated review too. ... You either fix it or close the thread with a short reason, which is how you clear a false positive.I hope this is only for low-risk false positives. Dismissing a critical finding as a false positive should still involve AppSec.You could improve revert rates while simultaneously introducing more security vulnerabilities.And the linked "claude-code-security-review" explicitly states in the README> This action is not hardened against prompt injection attacksThat's a significant limitation for an AI security review control, no?
• Menu

  compounding-err
  I think this is the future. Im more bullish than bearish. The only issue is that eventually human verification can no longer be possible and we will have to live under AI-verification assumptions....
• Menu

  RGS1811
  How is the ability of a human to understand the code via hands-on familiarity not a direct dependency of their ability to do manual code review? I don't get it. Having claude write an explainer (something I do a lot!) doesn't get you to the point where you can confidently assess a complex diff. And you've funneled your priors on what the diff says and does through the same system that already reviewed and approved it. This article isn't bad but it doesn't give enough weight to the human context-building part of the problem.
• pianopatrick
  I am happy people are testing these things out. I am also just going to wait a bit longer before really adopting things like this, I don't really trust it yet. A year ago this looked very different, and next year my guess is things will look different as well.
• Menu

  visarga
  All good ideas, I have been doing something similar for half a year. The most important thing is to reduce bugs and ensure the code does what you wanted. Writing code tests, logging, interacting with the running app are essential. For intent realignment I like to have the agent re-read all user messages posted in that project. It only takes a few minutes even on a 10,000 message project. Then use this fresh derivation of user intent to check code and tests. For long spans of work I prefer to generate a todo list which remains as a document in the project. Each closed gate tracks feedback from the agent on what happened. This task file is also reviewed twice - once before implementation and once after. So the formula is - review agents - tests - user message logs.
• hyperpape
  I'm somewhat surprised they would say Claude is writing 90% of their code at this point. Did they get tired of reporting new milestones, or has there been a plateau?
• jwpapi
  What I’m more worried about is feature identification and how to monitor them. How can you get the product to the next level?Honestly I’m not worried about code anymore in my codebase I’ve not had bug problems for a while and incidents get fixed automatically.I monitor new features with an agent who checks recordings.Most actually good features need still 20-30 iterations to design the userflow to actually be interactive, but then there is also another challenge to translate usage patterns into features and how to present functionality with the least amount of friction as possible.How to efficiently run monitors without wasting your token spends. A best 'monitor' best practice would be nice.Still this article was very helpful and gave me a lot of new ideas.
• vatsachak
  Mfw tui needs a billion prs per day.Opus 5.5 is obviously stellar but come on what are you doing lol
• lbrito
  Token peddler says best way to do something is using more tokens.This is not HN-worthy
• Menu

  dylanhouli
  Here I am still unable to stop myself from doing line-by-line code review. I notice too many things (redundant code, duplicate code, overly complex architecture, etc.) by doing it that I feel it would be careless not to.
• Menu

  nathanqueme
  I built a library to have a way to check Claude Code's work against API docs, and asked it to write many tests on top, but even then I found Claude Code would paraphrase and drift from the docs. I also found that it passed its own smoke tests but failed when testing against the real APIs, so reviewing Claude Code's code is tricky.
• Menu

  rileymichael
  what are people using for automated code review these days? the claude code review product originally mentioned it cost "$15-25 per review" (which is absurd), but it seems like they've removed that from their docs with the launch yesterday. we've looked at various products in the space (coderabbit, greptile, etc.) but have gripes with each.honestly i'm thinking it might be easier (and cheaper) to launch our own agent from GH webhooks and trigger `/code-review`..
• Menu

  ativzzz
  It looks like they are specifically optimizing for incidents/reverts and shipping faster> The goal hasn't changed: less human time per change, and no more reverts than before.Is this Goodhart's law in action? Less reverts and less incidents was measured and became the target. Is this then still a good measure? I guess Revenue is a more direct measure, but we don't have access to that one.
• stymaar
  Poorly I'm afraid, given how many new bugs make their way to the claude code CLI every update.
• Menu

  gonzalohm
  That explains why the UI keeps changing.How is this a proper product? Every time you open the desktop app the buttons may be on a completely random place
• vektormemory
  We have to test many different api's and models as we have over 600+ in our harness now, Sonnet 5.5 via cloud code provides the highest quality results.Over the last few years we have added mcp tools, memory graph, md files and skills, automated everything to the point that on desktop the system runs itself, besides proceed/approved/explain.We have 100's of PRs/jobs/projects and Claude builds down the list automated and only asks a few questions point form if needed.Very impressive now, compared to 6 months ago.You can view it if interested: www.vekmem.com
• typesanitizer
  FWIW, Pangram identifies several sections as 100% AI-written.
• Menu

  crooked-v
  Well, that explains the Github repo with 5000 issues, maybe about a third of which are random regressions of previous behavior.
• swingboy
  Sorry, but how the hell does a TUI harness have 30,000 changes _a day_?!
• Menu

  mixtureoftakes
  30 thousand changes merged per day? no. like just no. what are we doing? I'm trying to understand
• thisisauserid
  Remind me to invest more in the clouds they are burning those tokens in.
• bdcravens
  They use Codex?
• luisgvv
  And yet they can't fix the janky bugs when you scroll or show/hide chain of though, commands executed, configuring plug-ins from the options menu etc.
• corentin88
  Claude Code is great, but do you really push that much (new) code every day?
• Menu

  nakul_
  I wonder how they maintain the quality of tests for such a massive codebase and frequent commits.
• foolfoolz
  everything is shipped with auto reviews behind a flag. then you need a human approver to launchgood model
• Menu

  jstummbillig
  That's a shockingly low number.
• kettlez
  If the entire body of this article isn't just an "LGTM" then I know they're lying.
• JackSlateur
  90% ?A random twitter said that, 6 month ago, it was 100% !DECLINE ! SELL THE STOCK OPTIONS ! (wait, there are none, confused!)
• ChrisArchitect
  Title is: How the Claude Code team does code review
• miroljub
  I don't care how they do it.I vibe coded my harness that is superior to CC in functionality, and it still doesn't flicker.I don't need to hear their bullshit.
• surgical_fire
  Anthropic's solution to anything is to simply burn more tokens. Because of course.Anyway, flagging as misinformation.
• gary1381
  [flagged]