DevOps / SRE / Platform · 19.08.2026, 17:16 UTC
AI broke code review. What about knowledge sharing?
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| Kategorie | DevOps / SRE / Platform |
| Quelle | The New Stack ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 19.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
The volume of AI-generated code has broken code review. Engineers are reviewing 500-line diffs they didn’t write, generated by models they don’t fully control, at a pace that makes careful reading impossible.
But if AI is now generating most of the code and there is no way a human could ever read all of it, how do we save the knowledge-sharing job code review had always had?
“If code review shifts left, knowledge sharing also has to shift left.”
Code review has always been where knowledge moves through the team, where junior engineers watch how senior engineers think, where architectural decisions are challenged, mental models of the codebase are formed, and where shared ownership takes shape. If code review shifts left, knowledge sharing also has to shift left.
Code review as a teaching tool
In my podcast conversation with Vanitha Kumar, Market Technology Director at ThoughtWorks, she accidentally came to this realization.
Vanitha built an agent designed to catch anti-patterns and explain them to a developer who didn’t fit her team’s archetype. Knowing that archetype, she would instruct it to review code against the practices in their reference document, identify where the team was deviating, and explain why the deviation would be detrimental. She built it as a teaching agent more than a code review agent, though it gradually evolved into one.
It then occurred to me that this shouldn’t be caught late, after the commit. Code review, whether done by a human or an agent, has to happen much earlier, and it need not even be a review. It can be rubber ducking or a …