What X is shipping with agents right now.

Pratham@Prathkum·15h

How the Claude Code team reviews agent PRs: one agent group hunts bugs, another votes on whether they're real, and a bot approval never replaces a human owner.

Anthropic published how the Claude Code team does code review. Claude writes about 90% of Claude Code. In their monorepo, changes per day went from 2,500 in May to over 30,000 in September. So agents write the code, and then agents review the PRs. One group hunts for bugs, another group votes on whether each bug is real. One PR went through 50+ rounds of review and fixes overnight, an agent author and an agent reviewer just feeding each other until a human pulled the plug. 😂 Still, merged PRs more than doubled since June and reverts have dropped by over 40%. And a bot’s approval never counts as a human’s. Whoever prompted the agent owns the change. I wonder why we even need separate agents to review code when agents are going to write the code anyway. Crazy!

ClaudeDevs@ClaudeDevs·15h

The Claude Code team's own write-up on reviewing agent-written PRs at volume, with numbers (2x merged PRs, 40% fewer reverts) and steps to adopt it.

Claude writes about 90% of Claude Code's code. From June to September, merged PRs more than doubled while the share reverted fell by more than 40%. We wrote about how we changed code review to get there, and how to adopt it: https://claude.dev/blog/solving-code-review-at-anthropic/

lauren@poteto·18h

The trust pyramid: put most effort into codebase design and static checks, use skills and AGENTS.md prose sparingly, and save human review for the highest-leverage spots.

how do you trust your agents' work more? copy this post/link and give it to your @bot or agent! 1. codebase improvements: this is just good software engineering - better architecture, stronger types and invariants, clear boundaries. agents love to copy what exists and take the shortest path, so make the easy thing the right thing. categorically eliminate problems through code and you won't need to think about it again. 2. static analysis: lint rules, tests, CI, verification (eg TLA+). very token efficient ways to catch issues ahead of time. 3. prose: comments, rules, AGENTS.md, skills - anything that can't be enforced and requires agent judgment. use it minimally, but do use /create-verification-skill. 4. human review: the hardest to scale. at the rate agents land code, it's pretty much impossible to thoroughly review every PR, so spend that effort on the highest leverage point, designing an environment where agents do the right thing by default. this forms an inverse pyramid: you want most of your effort at the top, least at the bottom. codebase improvements are deterministic, making it more token efficient, and lets you sleep more soundly at night. install https://t.co/u9xIlN3eN0 and create a new Project: 1. look through my slack/chat messages and code review comments where i've given feedback on PRs, code, architecture 2. use /recall on my past transcripts to learn how i steer agents 3. /poteto-mode use /correct and /architect on past commits to find the most common pitfalls agents fall into, then propose a plan to rearchitect the code i own so it's more agent friendly. answer open questions with prototyping rather than defer to me, and back the plan with real data. 4. before you begin, use /sharpen + /in-your-own-words and confirm this prompt with me

Visual Studio Code@code·2d

VS Code's Agents window drafts the PR, then Agent Merge watches reviews and CI, resolves conflicts, syncs the branch and can auto-merge.

Let VS Code Handle Your Pull Request for You? See how the Agents window creates a PR with an automatically drafted title and description, then lets you review checks and track progress in one place. Agent Merge can monitor reviews and CI, resolve conflicts, keep your branch in sync, and merge automatically—with fine-grained control over when it acts. 👉🏽 https://t.co/jdaoDa8Yz1