<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Code Review on Will Codes</title><link>https://willcodes.com/en/tags/code-review/</link><description>Recent content in Code Review on Will Codes</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 13:28:45 -0300</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://willcodes.com/en/tags/code-review/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Future of Code Review: Straining Gnats Without Swallowing Camels</title><link>https://willcodes.com/en/articles/the-future-of-code-review-straining-gnats-without-swallowing-camels/</link><pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://willcodes.com/en/articles/the-future-of-code-review-straining-gnats-without-swallowing-camels/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I have been thinking a lot about how code review may change as agentic programming becomes a normal part of software development.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;I do not have a definitive answer—and I am wary of anyone who claims to. We are still at the beginning of this transition, and we will probably make many mistakes before we understand which practices truly work, which need adaptation, and which simply stop making sense.&lt;/p&gt;&#10;&lt;p&gt;What I want to share here is a thesis. It comes from practical experience, from ideas I have accumulated over years of reviewing code, and from a recent realization: perhaps AI does not need to replace the reviewer to profoundly transform how we review software.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>