Hacker News Reader

one reason i can imagine for this choice is that human review distributes new knowledge among human maintainers. Automated review might discourage that valuable interaction.

The comment is an artefact of an inherently valuable process, not the sole objective. So I'd prefer code is reviewed by a human who maybe initiates a discussion with an agent. I'd hope this minor workflow detail encourages the human to take a more active lead, rather than risk mere ceremonial approval.

An LLM is a plausibility engine. That can't be the final step of any workflow.

The policy isn’t about whether those tools raise good points. It’s about not letting agents act autonomously in project spaces. Human reviewed, opt in use is explicitly allowed.