We're growing very rapidly. So honestly, standup meetings now became the most important meeting and "definitely not a standup". A lot of product/customer things are decided during the call, engineers, PMs, and everyone really demos what they've worked on and questions are asked and answered during that call.
Code reviews are gone. We review the coding session itself instead. Everyone shares their coding sessions with whoever is going to review and the reviewer engages with the CLI to ask questions.
Hope-Driven-Development lol
We're growing very rapidly. So honestly, standup meetings now became the most important meeting and "definitely not a standup". A lot of product/customer things are decided during the call, engineers, PMs, and everyone really demos what they've worked on and questions are asked and answered during that call.
Code reviews are gone. We review the coding session itself instead. Everyone shares their coding sessions with whoever is going to review and the reviewer engages with the CLI to ask questions.
Disclosure: I'm building AQ (aq.dev) around exactly this workflow, so I'm biased. Longer write-up of the review approach: https://aq.dev/guides/reviewing-pull-requests-from-ai-agents...
> Hope-Driven-Development lol
I lolled.
Good to hear our standups are sounding like yours.
> reviewer engages with the CLI to ask questions.
Love this.
Read the post and appreciate some of the tips, e.g. looking at tests to check agent's assumptions.
How do you prevent sheer number of code reviews from becoming a bottleneck?