ProjectTech4DevAI / ProjectTech4DevAI/kaapi-backend
Review Process: AI-assisted code reviews
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 18
- Forks
- 10
- Avg merge
- 2d 20h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 14
Description
Is your feature request related to a problem?
The current PR review process relies heavily on two human reviewers, leading to complacency and skimming. While PR creation has accelerated with AI, the review process remains a human bottleneck, causing delays.
Describe the solution you'd like
- One reviewer should act as an AI/agentic code reviewer.
- The other reviewer performs a functional review: testing the branch, using Postman collections or the UI, and verifying acceptance criteria without a second code read.
- Implement Akhilesh's suggestion to generate a sequence diagram/implementation plan alongside the PR to highlight design issues without reading the code.
Original issue
Context
We currently assign two human reviewers, but the psychology is "Claude wrote it, it's probably fine" — reviewers skim and approve. PR creation is ~10x faster with AI, but review is still the human bottleneck.
Proposal
- One reviewer becomes an AI/agentic code reviewer.
- The remaining human does a functional review: check out the branch, get the Postman collection from the author (or exercise the UI), run the cases, and verify acceptance criteria / functional requirements — not a second code read. Side benefit: genuine knowledge transfer.
- Akhilesh's addition: generate a sequence diagram / implementation-plan artifact alongside the PR. Many design problems (e.g. three LLM judge calls that could be one) are visible at the high level without reading code; drop into code only where the high-level looks wrong.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files, tests, or implementation entry points are named. Start by documenting the current two-reviewer PR process and its acceptance criteria, then evaluate the proposed AI/agentic review, functional review using Postman or the UI, and sequence-diagram artifact; done requires an agreed process and implementation scope.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- postman
- Domain
- ai, developer-experience, testing
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100