One Correction Wave: A Stop Rule for AI-Assisted Review

Description and use

<p>A reviewer finds a bug. A coding agent fixes it. The fix triggers another review. The reviewer finds a style issue. The agent changes it. A new run notices a nearby concern. Soon the pull request has ten commits, three of them correcting earlier corrections, and nobody is sure which result is the one to review.</p> <p>That loop is not proof that AI review is useless. It is a sign that the team has not defined a stopping rule.</p> <h2> Review should converge on a decision </h2> <p>Automated review can produce many observations, but a pull request still needs a finite decision: accept the cha

Problem

<p>A reviewer finds a bug. A coding agent fixes it. The fix triggers another review. The reviewer finds a style issue. The agent changes it. A new run notices a nearby concern. Soon the pull request has ten commits, three of them correcting earlier corrections, and nobody is sure which result is the one to review.</p> <p>That loop is not proof that AI review is useless. It is a sign that the team has not defined a stopping rule.</p> <h2> Review should converge on a decision </h2> <p>Automated review can produce many observations, but a pull request still needs a finite decision: accept the cha

Outcome

<p>A reviewer finds a bug. A coding agent fixes it. The fix triggers another review. The reviewer finds a style issue. The agent changes it. A new run notices a nearby concern. Soon the pull request has ten commits, three of them correcting earlier corrections, and nobody is sure which result is the one to review.</p> <p>That loop is not proof that AI review is useless. It is a sign that the team has not defined a stopping rule.</p> <h2> Review should converge on a decision </h2> <p>Automated review can produce many observations, but a pull request still needs a finite decision: accept the cha

Evidence

One Correction Wave: A Stop Rule for AI-Assisted Review

Source