Show HN: ZTHR – what replaces code review when AI agents write all the code(zthr.ai)
4 pointsby SymmetricalZero4 hours ago5 comments
  • sshah032 hours ago
    I had similar thoughts behind a tool I made (https://github.com/sshah03/perspica) on the concept, in that 1) reviews are now the bottleneck, and 2) we should be reviewing vs. intent. The difference was I endeavoured to make this process as easy for a human reviewer as possible, vs the automated approach here.

    I would agree that the pace is getting too fast in some cases for human reviewers regardless of what tools are provided, in which case the solution discussed here is comparatively ideal. Possibly a state of mind I need to get over, but it feels risky if there's no one out there that has had eyes on code that goes in. Would you ever make a human understanding the change a fixture, or would that defeat the purpose of ZTHR?

    • SymmetricalZero2 hours ago
      Thanks for the reply! I had a hard time with it, but if you can pass all the hardest checks and tests, it is writing better code than I can. I think if the app is critical in a regulated industry then yes you can add back some human review at the final step, but have the AI also present all the fidnings to make that a fast job. if the blast radius is low, or the revert is 1 step, I would yolo!
  • bradknowles2 hours ago
    See also pullboard.dev (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50427599), userubberduck.com, pullsense.com, and a whole host of other tools in this space.

    I’m curious if anyone has done a comparison and contrast between all of these tools? How many others have I missed?

  • SymmetricalZero4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • bradhhhh2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • SymmetricalZero4 hours ago
    [flagged]