Developers and teams are not adequately reviewing their code, leading to verbose and ineffective AI-generated test cases

Signals over time

2 observed signals across 1 sources, tracked for 7 days. Confidence: low.

What people are saying Observed

• “Claude's code review skill, in particular, can find some good stuff. But it has some big blind spots around certain types of code. And it likes to come up with a lot of nits too—I think it's really really trained to try to always find between 2 and 8 things or somesuch. Good news is that it is very receptive to "nah" on the bikeshed ones and doesn't stick with them, but will stick with big issues. It'll probably bring up a few more nits though that it didn't bring up the first time! But I can completely believe that someone who knows the code by heart would have a better signal to noise ratio on their reviews. I'm trying to find the sweet spot because I've found some NASTY bugs Claude missed, and also had Claude find some nasty ones for me. And this is in codebases with tens-of-thousands of AI-generated lines of code + AI-driven reviews. So I want to bring both to the table. The existence of some of these major "oh man that changes a lot of our assumptions" bugs that were only found because someone poked on the agent and said "I don't think you're paying enough attention to this" justifies that, IME. And the”

  Hacker News · complaint

• “The quickest sign I have right now to find if the developer/team don't read their code is looking at their recently AI-generated test cases. Often, coding agents go too verbose in their tests and they are most often overlooked even during normal reviews. If there are verbose tests, like declaring a constant and asserting it's value, you know that the code isn't being read much.”

  Hacker News · complaint