wenjin272 commented on PR #930: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-agents/pull/930#issuecomment-5161886406
@weiqingy Here is my feedback after using #930 as our first experiment with developer-side artifacts for AI-assisted review. For this PR, I found the **Spec more useful than the Implementation Description**. The change is focused, the production-code diff is relatively small, and its impact is limited to a specific integration rather than a critical runtime path. The Spec gave me enough context to understand the design intent, behavioral boundaries, and key implementation decisions. By comparison, the Implementation Description sometimes went into so much detail that reading the code directly was more efficient. This is partly contextual. I am already familiar with and confident in Weiqing’s code quality, so I did not feel the need to inspect every implementation detail manually. A detailed as-built description may be more valuable for a larger, cross-cutting, unfamiliar, or critical-path change. For a PR of this size and risk profile, however, a concise Spec seems to be the better reviewer artifact. As a second-stage experiment, I also asked Codex to review the implementation against the Spec, generate findings, and post inline comments directly to GitHub. This workflow was practical: the Spec served as the review anchor, while the coding agent handled the detailed inspection of the implementation. This is only one data point, but my current impression is that the appropriate level of description should depend on the PR’s size and risk. For focused changes like this one, a Spec may provide most of the review benefit with less authoring and reading overhead. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
