I keep seeing people trust their own judgment a lot more once a copilot has done the first pass. The code may be cleaner, but the reviewer can get lazy about whether they actually understand the change or just recognise familiar-looking output.
Has anyone else noticed that gap between “looks fine” and “I could defend this in a meeting”?
I’ve seen this, especially when the diff has that “pleasantly generic” Copilot vibe—nice names, tidy helpers, everything looks familiar at a glance. What gets me is reviewers stop doing the little mental execution step (“what happens on the weird input / empty state / error path”) because the code reads like a blog post. One thing we started doing on my team is asking for one plain-English comment in the PR description: “If this breaks in prod, what’s the most likely reason? ” It’s a tiny speed bump, but it forces the author (and reviewer) to actually own the behavior instead of vibe-checking the output.
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--