Code review is dead. Long live code review
The article argues that traditional human code review is becoming obsolete for AI-generated code, as reviewing AI output line-by-line is inefficient and error-prone. Instead, it advocates for a shift toward automated verification through testing, static analysis, and guardrails rather than relying on human approval for each change.
Background
- Codacy is a software company that sells automated code review and quality analysis tools, primarily aimed at engineering teams. This article is part of its marketing content.
- "Code review" traditionally means a human developer reading a teammate's code changes before they are merged into the main project, looking for bugs, design issues, or style problems. This has long been a standard practice in professional software development.
- The article argues that with AI now generating large amounts of code (e.g., via GitHub Copilot, Cursor, or ChatGPT), the old human code review process is breaking down: AI code is voluminous, plausible-looking but often subtly wrong, and human reviewers can't keep up.
- The proposed alternative is automated "verification" — static analysis, linters, security scanners, and automated testing — replacing or heavily reducing human approval steps. This represents a broader industry debate about how to maintain software quality in the age of AI-generated code.