riyanapatel

This post hits on something crucial - the difference between performative code review and substantive collaboration. The "theatre" metaphor is spot-on. The core issue Saša identifies - PRs that are "unreviewable" getting rubber-stamped with "LGTM". Teams go through the motions without the actual substance.

The storytelling approach through commits is brilliant, but it only works if you solve the human factors too. Even perfectly crafted PRs with great commit narratives get surface-level reviews. The friction kills engagement.

A few complementary approaches I've seen work: pair reviewing for complex changes that are hard to break down, AI pre-screening for basic issues so humans can focus on architecture/business logic, and synchronous review sessions when async back-and-forth is just burning time.

The key insight: good PR structure needs to be paired with removing tooling friction. When review is painful, people default to "LGTM" regardless of how well the story is told.

I'm assuming you're thinking about whether or not to allow the interviewee to use AI to answer code-related questions or problems. I'll be honest. This is a huge debate now, given the shift of utilizing AI. However, I believe that the interviews should be a direct reflection of what the employee will be doing at the company. If that company uses AI in their workflows, then why shouldn't it be allowed in interviews? You need to see the way the user utilizes AI to solve problems or understand their thought processes.

Really cool!

Sometimes music is "quieter" than the loud office and chatter around me.