100% Agreed on it for sure. >Regarding Copilot billing, the lack of clarity on server-side costs is concerning.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 16:13, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kaxil, > > Regarding Copilot billing, the lack of clarity on server-side costs is > concerning. Given the recent surge in PR volume, there is a risk of > uncontrollable expenses if hard caps aren't in place, similar to those on > ASF CI. > > I agree that automated and assisted reviews are not mutually exclusive. I > am interested to hear how others perceive this balance and what their > experiences have been. > > Best, > Jarek Potiuk > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 2:20 PM Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ignore the last para about links -- it is the copy/paste of what I had > sent > > to the new AI initiative ASF group/list where some of related discussions > > were happening. > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 13:18, Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Copilot reviews as I had recently found out were paid for by our > > > Astronomer's GitHub enterprise (for me and other folks at Astronomer > from > > > our quota). > > > > > > And with them moving to Usage-based model (which was bound to happen), > it > > > will get expensive. > > > > > > Although, I think it is still valuable for mass-reviewing on the server > > > side since this happens on CI and is a complete opt-in by the reviewer > > and > > > there are no doubts. > > > > > > As I showed in the last dev call, I have my hand crafted review skill > > that > > > I use for detailed reviews from my laptop and that has been vetted by > me > > > before posting. So I am fully responsible for all the good and bad > (false > > > positive or hallucinations) things it catches since I approve it. And > > have > > > been using this skill for a good quarter or half a year (time flies). > > > > > > And that is why I do not feel it is either / OR -- meaning it was never > > > Copilot review vs local review for me since I used both based on the > > > purpose. For reviewing 200 PRs as last time, I used Copilot since a > > review > > > is helpful than no review, and PR getting marked stale and I have seen > > > folks self-assign copilot review on their PRs -- for those who have > > access > > > to it. I have done the same to have multiple layers (even though my > local > > > review skill already does multi-modal reviews). > > > > > > And my philosophy around Review and a lot of workflow skills have been: > > > What I look for in a PR isn't necessarily what someone else would look > > for. > > > Or what is important to me, might be nit for someone. So while as a > > project > > > we should have standards which go in AGENTS.md/Claude.md and or a > > > high-level review skill that is checked-in the project, the "what I > look > > > for" will remain on my machine and is geared towards my preference, > > testing > > > etc. Time and again I'd use reviews from Ash and others to tune it -- > > like > > > I would do even without AI. As an example Ash would have caught > something > > > in my PR or someone else's PR that I wouldn't have realized, and like a > > > human I'd learn for next time, so are my skills. But that is sort of my > > new > > > workflow adapting. > > > > > > re: fully automated Copilot reviews may discourage contributors who > > expect > > > human interaction > > > > > > At least to me, there is no difference between that and a review from a > > > human which completely sounds AI/robotic anyway since a human can just > > run > > > a skill and post the response as well --- from a purely PR author > > reception > > > point of view. It is just coming from a different account, and the > latter > > > feels even worse as it is coming from a human account. But at the end > of > > > the day, that is still a personal preference. A review (from copilot, > > from > > > human that sounds like AI, a pure human review) that catches a bug is > > still > > > better than no review, PR going stale and being closed. > > > > > > Long story short: I do not think they are mutually exclusive -- or > never > > > were mutually exclusive :) > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/63775#discussion_r3025383633 > -- > > > Copilot caught a Databricks provider importing airflow.utils.timezone > > > directly (which relies on Airflow's runtime deprecation redirect and > > > silences typing) and suggested switching to > > > airflow.providers.common.compat.sdk. That is our documented Airflow 2 / > > > Airflow 3 cross-version pattern for providers. Copilot only knows this > > > because we wrote it down. > > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62343#discussion_r3025380683 > -- > > > same cross-version import pattern, different provider. Author accepted > > the > > > suggestion. > > > - https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64568#discussion_r3025333917 > -- > > > Copilot flagged a fix for failure-callback context["exception"] > handling > > > and asked for a regression test specifically against the > > > InProcessTestSupervisor / dag.test() path. That is the correct > execution > > > path for that change, not a generic "please add a test" remark. > > > - > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/64576#pullrequestreview-4047787083 > > -- > > > Copilot reviewed a fix I authored for xcom_pull() ignoring default when > > > map_indexes was not set, and raised a header-precedence > > > question I had not thought about. > > > - > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/61878#pullrequestreview-3851732779 > > -- > > > Dennis surfaced this one on the dev list as a real review he found > useful > > > on a provider PR. He's at a > > > different company, so worth flagging as an independent signal. > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 11:02, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Kaxil and team, > > >> > > >> I’d like to discuss our strategy for "copilot reviews" versus SKILL > > based > > >> assisted triage and maintainer review experiences. > > >> > > >> My recent experiments with skill-based auto-triage show a downward > trend > > >> in > > >> stale pull requests by filtering out "drive-by" contributions, > allowing > > >> maintainers to focus on high-impact work (more stats and trends soon). > > >> Unlike 3rd-party tools, this approach is agent-agnostic, easily > > fine-tuned > > >> via English prompts, and potentially reusable across other ASF > projects. > > >> > > >> Regarding transparency, I’ve proposed specific attribution formats [1] > > to > > >> distinguish between purely automated comments and those reviewed by > > >> humans. > > >> This aligns with ongoing [email protected] conversations [2] > > about > > >> using "Assisted By" instead of "Generated-by" to maintain > accountability > > >> and contributor motivation. > > >> > > >> I have concerns that fully automated Copilot reviews may discourage > > >> contributors who expect human interaction. My experimental > > >> /maintainer-review skill [3] allows maintainers to drive the process > by > > >> reviewing AI-generated comments before posting. This reduces "token > > >> ping-pong," integrates with the CODEOWNERS discussion [4], and ensures > > we > > >> only spend tokens on relevant, triaged PRs. And keep maintainers > > >> ultimately > > >> responsible for comments they accept to send. > > >> > > >> With Copilot moving to usage-based billing on June 1 [5], using > personal > > >> or > > >> open-source credits via the skill-based approach introduces some > change > > >> (but I am still unclear what it means to the billing - who pays for > the > > >> tokens). > > >> > > >> Conversely, for skill-based processes, it's entirely in the hands (and > > >> pocket) of those who run the skill locally. We are also working with > ASF > > >> and Alpha-Omega to secure long-term resources for maintainers for > that. > > >> > > >> I would love to hear your thoughts about it - especially Kaxil's > > >> experiences regarding the Copilot review experiment - my observations > > >> might > > >> be incomplete and biased :). > > >> > > >> J. > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65965 - comment > attribution > > >> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qbdkky8ls6zybyy9o3pvqnpf68r089qp > - > > >> legal discussion thread on attributions > > >> [3] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65981 - /maintainer-review > > >> skill > > >> [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5ssp4ksyohdzclxqvj7ngz0hz5wy9j68 > - > > >> CODEOWNERS discussion > > >> [5] > > >> > > >> > > > https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-copilot-is-moving-to-usage-based-billing/ > > >> - change in billing for Copilot > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Jarek Potiuk > > >> > > > > > >
