FRESH

Hacker News

Code Review for Claude Code

78 points by adocomplete

by raflueder

0 subcomment

Or, just spin up your own review workflow, I've been doing this for the past couple of months after experimenting with Greptile and it works pretty well, example setup below:
https://gist.github.com/rlueder/a3e7b1eb40d90c29f587a4a8cb7c...
An average of $0.04/review (200+ PRs with two rounds each approx.) total of $19.50 using Opus 4.6 over February.
It fills in a gap of working on a solo project and not having another set of eyes to look at changes.

by nnennahacks

0 subcomment

Yeah, the "$15-20 a PR is cheaper than a great engineer" idea is doing a lot of hand‑waving here...
If you're a big shop pushing, say, 2,000 PRs a week and reviews average $15–25, that’s on the order of $30k–$50k a week in AI review spend, or $1.5-2.5M a year. That is quite a line item to justify.
"It's $20 cheaper than a senior engineer’s hourly rate,"... so what are you actually doing with your human reviewers once you add this on?
If you keep your existing review culture and just bolt this on, then you've effectively said "we’re willing to add $1–2M+ a year to the budget." That might be fine, but then you should be able to point to fewer incidents, shorter lead times, higher coverage, something like that.
Either this is a replacement story (fewer humans, different risk profile) or it's an augmentation story (same humans, bigger bill, hopefully better outcomes). "It’s cheaper than a great engineer" by itself skips over the fact that, at scale, you’re stacking this cost on top of the engineers you already have in the org.

by xlii

2 subcomments

> We've been running Code Review internally for months: on large PRs (over 1,000 lines changed), 84% get findings, averaging 7.5 issues. On small PRs under 50 lines, that drops to 31%, averaging 0.5 issues. Engineers largely agree with what it surfaces: less than 1% of findings are marked incorrect.
So the take would be that 84% heavily Claude driven PRs are riddled with ~7.5 issues worthy bugs.
Not a great ad of agent based development quality.

by neuronexmachina

0 subcomment

I'm curious how this compares to just setting up a claude-code-action with one of Anthropic's existing code-review plugins:
* https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/tree/m...
* https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official/tree/m...

by CharlesW

6 subcomments

Interesting: "Reviews are billed on token usage and generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity."

by jjmarr

0 subcomment

I shipped this parallel agent workflow with validator agents as an internal tool months ago. It got a 20% reduction in time-to-merge, had a similar cost, and left 10x the comments as any existing AI review tool.
It's totally worth it.

by Bnjoroge

2 subcomments

what are the implications for the tens of code review platforms that have recently raised on sky high valuations?

by denisdev1

0 subcomment

My experience has been similar. LLM reviews are useful, but they tend to always produce findings. Even on small or very clean changes you wll still get a list of suggestions.
So part of the workflow becomes filtering signal vs noise.

by simianwords

1 subcomments

by nolanl

1 subcomments

The concept of "AI will review AI-authored PRs" seems completely wrong to me. Why didn't the AI write the correct code in the first place?
If it takes 17 rounds of review from 5 different models/harnesses – I don't care. Just spit out the right code the first time. Otherwise I'm wasting my time clicking "review this" over and over until the PR is worth actually having a human look at.

by nemo44x

1 subcomments

So their business model is to deliver me buggy code and then charge me to fix it?

by cpncrunch

1 subcomments

by lowsong

2 subcomments

> Reviews are billed on token usage and generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity.
You've got to be completely insane to use AI coding tools at this point.
This is the subsidised cost to get users to use it, it could trivially end up ten times this amount. Plus, you've got the ultimate perverse incentive where the company that is selling you the model time to create the PRs is also selling you the review of the same PR.