Re: AI-assisted review

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4348 bytes --]

On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 03:11:49PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
> On May 25, 2026 3:03:28 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >Hi Tom,
> >
> >On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 09:58, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5/16/26 00:07, Tom Rini wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There was a query on the call this week about whether I am doing
> >> > > > AI-assisted code review. As I said on the call: yes. Here is a
> >brief
> >> > > > description of how it works.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is built into Patman (on the Concept tree) with a new 'patman
> >> > > > review' command. You give it the series name / number, or perhaps
> >a
> >> > > > patch name/number and it applies the patches to a new branch, does
> >a
> >> > > > review then adds its comments to its database.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A '-d' flag can be used to create draft emails in Gmail (sorry, it
> >> > > > doesn't support other email programs yet). You then check and
> >update
> >> > > > the emails and send them (or delete them). I am not an expert in
> >> > > > handling the 'user voice' part of AI, but have made an attempt to
> >make
> >> > > > it follow any provided configuration, as well as to scan recent
> >> > > > reviews to actually create to create a voice.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Obviously this is very rudimentary and could be expanded
> >considerably.
> >> > > > But the mere fact that it creates draft emails is a win for me,
> >even
> >> > > > if I ultimately delete or rewrite most of the comments. I can
> >imagine
> >> > > > 10 different ways to improve it to be more useful.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I wrote a blog post about it if you want more details, or you can
> >ask me here.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am very interested in hearing how others are using these new
> >tools
> >> > > > for code review.
> >> > >
> >> > > And the big thing for now is that since we as a project do not yet
> >have
> >> > > an AI policy aside from "please don't". One of the points I was
> >making
> >> > > on the call is that there's a difference in value between "Human
> >> > > reviewed it, looks fine" and "Human spent some tokens, agent didn't
> >see
> >> > > any problems".
> >> > >
> >> > > And I know several other people have been doing at least first pass
> >> > > reviews with various agent-tools, it's just no one else has been
> >posting
> >> > > reviews at your scale. And lessons learned from other projects is
> >that
> >> > > the prompts are more important than whatever wrapper around the
> >agent
> >> > > one is using.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Don't think scale is the problem. Tool and integration is another
> >topic.
> >>
> >> Simon posted approximately 100 reviews in about 24 hours. That scale is
> >> a problem, when most of them are just reviewed-by tags, from someone
> >> that has a history of doing human reviews. Reputation is a factor here
> >> I'm trying to figure out how best to articulate.
> >>
> >> I have thoughts on the rest that I want to get back to later, thanks.
> >
> >I should point out that I tend to do reviews locally bit by bit and
> >then recheck and send out in batches later, particularly when I need
> >to dig into the code and check things. I suspect a lot of the
> >'reviewed-by' ones are on revised series where I already reviewed v1,
> >etc. For better or worse, patman tends to have something to say on
> >most patches (too picky for my style so I often delete comments).
> >
> >Re the AI policy, I suggest adding it in the project docs (even if it
> >is very brief), rather than referencing a URL from another project.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Simon
> >
> 
> Hey guys, sorry for the unexpected email but I have a question
> 
> How would you know the reviewed by tag wasn't just made by a AI
> 
> Would like: "Here is the tag from soandso AI"
> 
> Or would it be like
> 
> "AI reviewed this and it looks fine"
> 
> Apologies for the unexpectedness of the email :)

That's one of my concerns, yes. And I've been a bit shocked that other,
bigger, projects that do allow for AI review haven't come up with
something already.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]