moshetanzer

quite cool! keep up the good work!

Ask HN,

It feels increasingly backwards that PR reviews are where we catch basic bugs, style issues, and convention violations.

With AI writing a large chunk of code now, the volume of small, avoidable mistakes has gone up. Yet we still wait until PRs to point out things that could have been flagged instantly, pre-commit, on the author’s machine.

PR review should be about design, correctness, and tradeoffs — not “missing await”, inconsistent patterns, or obvious slop.

Is there a good reason pre-commit review isn’t the norm, or are we just accepting an inefficient workflow because it’s familiar?

Curious how others see this.

Most code review happens at PR time, after code is already written, tested, and context is gone.

With more AI-written code, tests pass but logic issues still slip through. Would earlier, pre-commit code reviews make more sense?

I’m exploring this idea with a tool that reviews logic at commit time — curious how others think about timing reviews earlier.