A team facing a large rise in merged pull requests and better overall product quality found review throughput becoming a bottleneck: median review time rose from about 33 to 77 minutes even as merges per engineer increased roughly fourfold (with some teams and individuals rising far more) and incidents fell substantially. To scale review without losing knowledge transfer, error prevention, anti-abuse controls, or compliance, the team created a narrow, experiment-driven policy called small-change that shifts many routine checks into automated verification and centralized harnesses while reserving human attention for higher-risk work.
Eligibility for small-change is enforced by a CI check and limited by concrete rules: under 1,000 lines, no p1/p2 flags from the ai-code-review bot, author has 10+ prior merges in the affected service(s), impacts fewer than N services (N=1 on frontend, N=3 on backend), excludes shared libs, and can be tuned per-repo via a .small_change file. Slack reacji mark status; automated harness skills (review-small-change approves or ignores without commenting; review-pr-cluster surfaces thematic issues) speed approval and avoid “meat proxy” noisy reviews. Rollout took a couple days; about 10% of changes currently qualify and typically get fast approval. Success hinges on expanding verifications, avoiding false comfort from proxy reviews, and winning cultural buy-in as the team iterates the system.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.