OK hear me out, what about you write some motherfucking code, and then you review some motherfucking code. With your brain.

This puts far too much control on the LLMs. A LLM can provide suggestions for a PR, but those suggestions are not a sufficient replacement for a real review.

If the rate of PRs is too high to review, the solution isn’t to sacrifice the reviews. It’s to ensure that the PRs are of sufficiently high quality that the reviews are quick. Small PRs are faster to review, and readable code is easier to review. Tests can validate correctness to the reviewer. Make the review process as easy as possible for a proper code review.

The hybrid approach seems to me like it’d be the most successful here. Generate your PR suggestions, and let the PR owner resolve them how they like. Then, do a proper review on the PR. Where I disagree with the author here is the reviewer shouldn’t review the suggestions and resolutions, but the final diff instead.