Posted by pretext 2 hours ago
I really don't get the tendency here from Anthropic to describe what's most likely churn? 1000 "PRs" a day on a TUI to wrap a while loop? I'm not going to be a reductionist here so I'm going to cut it off there, I'm positive that the complexity of handling multiple terminal emulators is something that needs some handling (even if doing their own rendering engine was a self made problem). Yes I've vibe coded my own harness from scratch without writing any of it, I still know how it works.
I'm also not sure that they addressed point 2 in any actual capacity? They say "the system verifies itself" which is cool and is something that automated testing has done for decades, but they eschew the mental model of how the system works as a whole and prefer instead to have the LLM focus and summarize a slice of the system when they need to know about it or ask for it. But.... That's not knowledge? That's just search a la google? And thus seems to be subject to the same problems where the quality of your search dictates the quality of your knowledge that you surface at any given time?
This is the crux. Take pause, because hidden here is a sea-change in our fundamental trust model of software...
There is no longer anyone to turn to if this system breaks by, eg, having a critical bug that no one can figure out. No causal model in anyone's head that can be appealed to, to slowly and methodically debug. By design, the system is too large for that, and everything hinges on Claude itself being able to find and understand the right slice of the system in any situation. As long as that very new invariant holds, everything will be all right. If it fails catastrophically, there is no recovery. You are the owner of a recovered alien spacecraft with tech you have no hope of understanding.
The new trust model is: We trust Claude to always understand the system enough to debug anything or make any reasonable change we could want. The risk might be worth the reward. But it's worth explicitly laying out the deal we're making.
I know some people will groan hearing the phrase again, but: "Reverse centaur." A centaur is a synergistic combination of two things, but now those things are in the wrong position: The human is the computer's tool.
Naturally, how "wrong" it is tends to depend on whether you ask the people who do all the work or the people who own all the computer-capital.
From the article, the 30,000 changes a month are in the monorepo, and Claude Code is in a separate repo. So it’s not the TUI that has 1,000 PRs a day.
I could easily see 1,000 PRs a day on the backend. Big tech was doing more than that pre-AI.
> Most of the path is automated; a person's attention goes where the risk is
> The eval grows with every incident, and every change to the reviewer is scored against all of it.
And now this. Suffice to say, my efforts did not bear fruit. I feel more isolated than ever before.
I don't think we've gotten to that level of reliable review with code, but I don't see any reason we can't continue moving in that direction.
For code, I think things go in the opposite direction: the system outputs artifacts that are all different among themselves (even more so now that we no longer distribute software via physical copies. Well, bits are always physical, but I mean we no longer ship floppies/CDs/DVDs).
That said, at least in my experience, code review has never been a direct part of factory-line-type QA. That QA is typically done by treating software as a black box and just verifying that it complies with a spec (often times based on a very loose definition of "spec" ...), and this is something that works equally well regardless of whether a human or a machine wrote the software. The type of QA that is done (among other things) by code reviews is checking whether the software's design is such that it will be economically feasible to maintain and extend it, for example.
The one part the code reviews takes a part of (but is in no way error-free) and that you just can't do with black-box testing (or it is much harder to do) is to look for things like backdoors. As our industry moves more towards "agents write software and tests validate that it works," I think a lot about "Reflections on Trusting Trust" and the new and wide attack surface added by people no longer reading the code shipped on their behalf.
Of course Anthropic would love you to think you are heading towards that future so we have to bear in mind their livelihood depends on LLMs being the future of work and 30k changes a day being normal.
But why would we want 30k changes a day in a given product, what possible justification could there be?
First, I think we overestimate how different code is from other code. We even joke about CRUD apps and how cookie-cutter they are. A lot of changes in those apps are: add some new features to a data access layer (SQL, ORM, whatever), add new routes, add new UI surface, etc. There is an entire industry around "Design Patterns" and people live by the DRY axioms. Things like Ruby on Rails exists because rebuilding these systems over and over is wasteful. I feel we are just moving further down that same path.
Second, your question of "why would we want" is totally backwards. Progress doesn't follow your desires. Progress doesn't require justification. Sometimes we adapt the environment to our needs, other times we adapt to a changing environment. Which case we are currently in is still undecided and you are free to fight for the future you prefer. But demanding an industry justify itself before it is allowed to change fails in the face of evolution. If it works, we will justify it in hindsight.
> None required once automated review and security checks are green
How anybody can let an LLM write docs and not even read them is pure insanity.
Authors should really try and view this article from the perspective of someone who has to think about cost to use the models.
"According to the report, adjusted operating income excludes stock-based compensation, which is not unusual for technology companies. However, the report also quotes its gross margins - above 80% - exclude revenue shared with distribution partners, as well as the cost of training its models."
From https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2026091414/the-...
Antropic's revenue is up [1], [2], [3] and if you calculate adjusted operating income (by excluding most expenses like training costs) then by that measure it is profitable. However, if you factor in all the numbers it is operating at a loss.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-v...
[2] https://fortune.com/2026/09/29/anthropic-leaked-ipo-prospect...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/15/anthropics-third-quarter-rev...
And what they're reporting is adjusted even further than EBITDA
Now we’re just going to outsource our capacity to design and review because it’s faster that way, as if the thing that was wrong with the software industry was that releases weren’t being pushed out often enough.
Opus 5.5 is obviously stellar but come on what are you doing lol
Honestly I’m not worried about code anymore in my codebase I’ve not had bug problems for a while and incidents get fixed automatically.
I monitor new features with an agent who checks recordings.
Most actually good features need still 20-30 iterations to design the userflow to actually be interactive, but then there is also another challenge to translate usage patterns into features and how to present functionality with the least amount of friction as possible.
How to efficiently run monitors without wasting your token spends. A best 'monitor' best practice would be nice.
Still this article was very helpful and gave me a lot of new ideas.
I hope this is only for low-risk false positives. Dismissing a critical finding as a false positive should still involve AppSec.
You could improve revert rates while simultaneously introducing more security vulnerabilities.
And the linked "claude-code-security-review" explicitly states in the README
> This action is not hardened against prompt injection attacks
That's a significant limitation for an AI security review control, no?