Hacker News Reader

"Letting the agents loop can result in more changes than expected, which are usually welcome..."

If "more changes than expected" means "out of scope", then I disagree. Those types of changes are exactly one of the things that's best to avoid whether code is being written by a person or an LLM.

View on HN

It doesn’t mean that they are always out of scope, rather than the reviewer can be nitpicking (like humans do) and instead of addressing the comment in a follow-up PR, the change gets addressed in the same PR. So not necessarily out of scope, but it can add up and make it harder for a human to review.

That’s why I’m wondering if we should instruct the agents to act more like humans would: if the change can be done in a follow-up PR, this is probably what an experienced engineer would do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com