Agentic AI PRs sit in the review queue 5.3x longer than unassisted ones

Agentic AI PRs sit in the review queue 5.3x longer than unassisted ones(blog.codacy.com)

5 points by claudiacsf 64 days ago | 4 comments

dogleash 64 days ago |

This is such an optimistic article ignoring the problem. There is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of pull requests.

More static checking and AI analysis of changes are good things, everything else being equal. But they're not sufficient to offset the additional review demands of AI pull requests.

> This layered model keeps PRs moving without lowering standards.

> Accountability stays with the human. But the human review becomes more about judgment and less about mechanical inspection when baseline checks are already handled.

> But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate. If review throughput is seen a bottleneck, don't saddle people with accountability for changes they're pressured to let through.

claudiacsf 63 days ago | |

In teams where there is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of PRs there shouldn't be much of a bottleneck problem. They've solved it by lowering the bar. The article is for the teams who have decided the bug and incident cost of doing that isn't worth it, and now have to absorb the volume anyway.

>But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

>>Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate.

The dancing is IMO a reasonable analysis of the state of the code review today. Yes, there are systems in the works but today there isn't yet a good enough system of automated checks to simply let code through. Because then this happens https://pages.faros.ai/hubfs/AI_Engineering_Report_2026_The_...

aniokono 64 days ago |

Seems like a very long Ai article .

What's the summary? How does your service make it better?

claudiacsf 64 days ago | |

Fair. TL;DR:

The goal with the article is to explain what tools can be employed to tackle the PR bottleneck and where humans are still needed - at this point in time. Code quality and security platforms like Codacy (here's the service) can automate away many baseline checks (SAST, test coverage, complexity, duplication, linters, etc). This provides deterministic analysis that is the same every time, unlike pure AI code reviewers. But there's very much still room for AI-assisted reviews. AI is very good at identifying what has changed, grouping findings by severity and helping the human reviewer focus their attention. After these 2 passes, human attention can be reserved for the important judgement calls. "Human reviewers concentrate on judgment rather than scanning for issues that tools can detect consistently."

Codacy does both layers, the deterministic checks that have to be repeatable and auditable, and the AI on top. This cuts review time without lowering coding standards.