[spot5010]

The scenario the author describes is bound to happen more and more frequently, and IMO the way to address it is by evolving the culture and best practices for code reviews.

A simple solution would be to mandate that while posting coversations with AI in PR comments is fine, all actions and suggested changes should be human generated.

They human generated actions can’t be a lazy: “Please look at AI suggestion and incorporate as appropriate. ”, or “what do you think about this AI suggestion”.

Acceptable comments could be: - I agree with the AI for xyz reasons, please fix. - I thought about AIs suggestions, and here’s the pros and cons. Based on that I feel we should make xyz changes for abc reasons.

If these best practices are documented, and the reviewer does not follow them, the PR author can simply link to the best practices and kindly ask the reviewer to re-review.