<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: quatotor</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=quatotor</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 03:29:16 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=quatotor" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by quatotor in "There is more to code review than (automatable) detection"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I have similar experience with coderabbit we use at work. On the other hand codex with astra I use locally is way better. Still AI review is very different from human review. AI is better in paying attention and in finding bugs but it is incapable to detect code smells, wrong architectural decisions or domain errors.<p>Although AI is still way better in code reviews than in writing code. It make sense to use it as another automatic check in pipeline and it looks it will eventually be better.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 07:58:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49874901</link><dc:creator>quatotor</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49874901</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49874901</guid></item></channel></rss>