"On December 19, 2025, Cursor acquired Graphite for more than $290 million. CEO Michael Truell framed the move simply: code review is taking up a growing share of developer time as the time spent writing code keeps shrinking. The message is clear. AI coding tools have largely solved the generation speed. Now the industry is betting that review is the next constraint to break."
"But that raises a more interesting question. Does AI-generated code actually require a different kind of review? The data suggests the bottleneck is real. A 2025 study by CodeRabbit found that AI-written code surfaces 1.7× more issues than human-written code, and nearly half of developers say debugging AI output takes longer than fixing code written by people. Still, those are aggregate numbers. They don't tell you what actually changes when you're staring at a pull request."
"So I tested it. I built the same features twice: once by hand using a standard Python workflow, and once using Claude Code with natural language prompts. The point wasn't to prove that AI code is worse. It was to see how review patterns shift, and whether the claimed bottleneck shows up in practice. What I found does confirm the review problem is real, just not in the ways I expected."
AI coding tools have largely solved generation speed, causing code review to take a growing share of developer time and become the industry’s next constraint. A 2025 CodeRabbit study found AI-written code surfaces 1.7× more issues than human-written code, and nearly half of developers report debugging AI output takes longer. An experiment built identical features by hand and with Claude Code to observe review pattern changes. Review questions shift from correctness toward necessity and contextual fit. Faster code generation can still slow teams if review practices do not adapt, because different failure modes and extra verification increase review workload.
Read at LogRocket Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]