[locknitpicker]

> I find that even though the cost of writing code is immensely cheap, reviewing and validating that it works in certain code bases (like the millions of line mono repo I work in at my job) is extremely high.

That is my observation as well. Churning code is easy, but making sure the code is not total crap is a completely new challenge and concern.

It's not like prior to LLMs code reviews didn't required work. Far from it. It's just that how the code is generated in a completely different way, and in some cases with barely any oversight from vibecoders who are trying to punch way above their weight. So they generate these massive volumes of changes that fail in obvious and subtle ways, and the flow is relentless.

[pjerem]

What tremendously helps is asking the LLM to add a lot a lot explanations by adding comments to each and every line or function.

You can remove those comments afterwards if you feel they are too much but it helps a lot the reviewing.

More a trick than a silver bullet but it's nice.

[locknitpicker]

> What tremendously helps is asking the LLM to add a lot a lot explanations by adding comments to each and every line or function.

No, it doesn't. It's completely useless and unhelpful. These machine-generated comments are only realizations of the context that already outputted crap. Dumping volumes of this output adds more work to reviewers to parse through to figure out the mess presented by vibecoders who didn't even bothered to check what they are generating.