Outside of the benefit of some extra documentation around changes and having more than one person see what’s happened there are a few main safety parts here: *

Outside of the benefit of some extra documentation around changes and having more than one person see what’s happened there are a few main safety parts here: * It can be easier to see a problem in something that another person wrote, you’re not clouded by what you intended to write * different skill sets mean two sets of eyes broadens the kind of problems that can be found (benefits from selecting good reviewers, maybe I’m tagged because I know the llm APIs and performances better by someone who has done refactoring to improve, say, internal caching that’s more their thing) * just chance. There’s some chance you spot an issue, some chance someone else does. Combined it’s better. * I disagree they can’t find architectural or design issues. You see repeated changes of the same kind, or tying together things that shouldn’t be, etc. But yes, many things could be caught before opening. Lots I catch as I’m explaining the change, like rubber ducking. I quite like AI code reviews things for this, there’s a whole back and forth that can be avoided once you get past basic linting/test level things. Save the human time for understanding the higher level issues.