[lyal]

Definitely a concern within the business -- we're trying to solve this through a combination of tooling and reassignment of reviewers to the same projects. Within tooling, we use analysis to pair developers with expertise against a project (if you've built a middleware stack in python ten times, it becomes easier to gain context and identify issues).

Totally true in places like mobile/react, or projects where teams are unlikely to have significant internal expertise despite technology in production (see a midsized game studio running an erlang server for chat) providing value is easy. We believe our approach is working, and will continue to get better.

(On a personal level -- huge fan of your work!)

[antirez]

Thanks for replying directly! Btw what I said is definitely not a limit for your business IMHO, because even if you continue to have an high rate of false negatives, many businesses may find valuable to find some bugs using your service: to lower the amount of imperfections can be already good enough. After all no code review is able to spot any bug. It's just that in complex software with many moving parts, one should understand that probably two kinds of reviews are needed, more "local" reviews that can still spot certain bugs, and other conceptual reviews made by people which are very expert in the code base. Moreover, I think that for large customers, you may even have a product that involves developers becoming experts of a single code base of a large customer to provide in-depth reviews. Good luck!