I think AI should complement the human review, not replace it, and I think everyone already agrees with me on this. The problem with AI reviews, is that they a

I think AI should complement the human review, not replace it, and I think everyone already agrees with me on this. The problem with AI reviews, is that they add a lot more text to read, the PR description is another wall of text, test steps are very verbose, most comments are just noise. I believe AI should instead help pointing the dev to the important stuff and help identify noise, this would actually make the review go faster. since the introduction of AI, the bottleneck for shipping code shifted from producing code to reviewing it, and the PR reviewing experience on Github is lackluster, leaving a lot to be desired. my team now ships too much code and it sits in review for too long, reviewing AI code is not easy and we need a better tool to review code, especially on large PRs, Github no longer meets my needs or use cases so I had to build something myself. I got frustrated enough that I built my own reviewer around this idea: instead of adding commentary, it groups files into folders by complexity, surfaces the handful of changes that actually need deep review, and marks the mechanical noise so you can blow through it. On migration PRs it cut my review time down a lot. As a web dev, I know what works and what doesn't, I hated how AI bloats the PR with more text, so I changed that to make the AI help me categorize the files into folders, splitting them by complexity, and pointing me to the important stuff I need to review indepth, and flag the noise so I can skim it faster, that sped up reviewing time immensely, especially on migration PRs where most is mechanical name changes. I can share more if people are curious, I'd rather not turn this into an ad.