Ankit Jain: Rethinking Code Reviews with AI

Ankit Jain of Aviator argues for a shift in code reviews, focusing on 'intent' and 'alignment' with AI-assisted development, proposing an 'AI Slop Register' and integrated verification system.

Ankit Jain presenting on stage with a slide titled 'How to Kill the Code Review'
AI Engineer
Visual TL;DR
Modern Code Review FailsDriver
861% code churn, rising incidents, 4x wait time, 30% unreviewed changes
From the article 9+ mentionsJain, drawing from his previous work on a five-layer trust model, argued that the current methods of code review are failing to keep pace with the rapid increase in code volume and the rise of AI coding agents.
AI Writes/Reviews CodeCore
From the article 9+ mentionsHe pointed to the common scenario where AI agents write and review code, leading to a situation where humans merely skim the output before merging.
Focus on Intent/AlignmentContext
shift code reviews to 'intent' and 'alignment' with AI-assisted development
AI Slop RegisterCore
new system to track and manage AI-generated code that needs human attention
From the article 3 mentionsTo address the issue of recurring review findings, Jain introduced the concept of an "AI Slop Register." This system would codify common issues identified during reviews, essentially turning repetitive comments into automated guardrails.
Unified Verification SystemCore
integrated platform for alignment and accuracy, leveraging LLMs and deterministic checks
From the articleThis test plan is then used in a verification system that spins up previews to ensure the code functions end-to-end.
Rethink Code ReviewsOutcome
Ankit Jain of Aviator proposes a fundamental shift in how code reviews are done
From the article 9+ mentionsJain highlighted several concerning trends: an 861% increase in code churn, a rising incidents-to-PR ratio indicating diminishing review effectiveness, and a 4x increase in time spent waiting for reviews.
Improved Code QualityEffect
reduce incidents and improve effectiveness by focusing on core development goals
From the articleThis approach allows the system to learn from human review experiences, leading to better overall code quality.
Contents(7)

In a presentation titled "How to Kill the Code Review," Ankit Jain, co-founder of Aviator, a company building an AI code verification platform, discussed the evolving challenges and potential solutions for code review processes in the age of AI-assisted development. Jain, drawing from his previous work on a five-layer trust model, argued that the current methods of code review are failing to keep pace with the rapid increase in code volume and the rise of AI coding agents.

Ankit Jain: Rethinking Code Reviews with AI - AI Engineer
Ankit Jain: Rethinking Code Reviews with AI, AI Engineer

The Problem with Modern Code Reviews

Jain highlighted several concerning trends: an 861% increase in code churn, a rising incidents-to-PR ratio indicating diminishing review effectiveness, and a 4x increase in time spent waiting for reviews. Alarmingly, over 30% of changes are merged without any review at all. He pointed to the common scenario where AI agents write and review code, leading to a situation where humans merely skim the output before merging. "When AI reviews and nobody reads, we have configured the wrong thing," Jain stated, questioning the purpose of a UI in this automated workflow.

Code Review: Beyond Semantic Accuracy

While acknowledging that code reviews have historically focused on catching bugs, conventions, and security issues, Jain emphasized that a critical, often overlooked, aspect is 'alignment.' This includes knowledge sharing, mentorship, architectural feedback, and onboarding. He stressed that for teams, this alignment is paramount, and while tools can improve semantic accuracy, the collaborative aspect of code review must be preserved.

Intent-Driven Development and AI's Role

Jain critiqued the "spec-driven development" model, comparing it to the limitations of the 1970s waterfall model due to its lack of feedback loops. He argued that true intent doesn't solely reside in specifications but also in Jira tickets and, crucially, in the prompts used to interact with AI coding agents. "Most importantly, intent lives in your prompts today," he said, lamenting that this valuable information is often discarded after a pull request is created.

Introducing the AI Slop Register

To address the issue of recurring review findings, Jain introduced the concept of an "AI Slop Register." This system would codify common issues identified during reviews, essentially turning repetitive comments into automated guardrails. "Every recurring comment is now a guardrail that you don't have to review again," he explained. This approach allows the system to learn from human review experiences, leading to better overall code quality.

Building a Unified System: Alignment and Accuracy

Jain proposed a system that integrates both alignment and semantic accuracy. The process involves capturing user responses from AI sessions to form acceptance criteria, which are then combined with the AI Slop Register to create a test plan. This test plan is then used in a verification system that spins up previews to ensure the code functions end-to-end. The review surface shifts from examining code line-by-line to reviewing the evidence of intent, capability implementation, and adherence to requirements.

He elaborated on the practical application: capturing decisions made during AI coding sessions converts them into acceptance criteria. LLMs can assist in generating test plans from these criteria, streamlining the process. The value of human input remains in the governance and review of these test plans, rather than the code itself. This approach, he noted, aligns with behavior-driven development, making test plans shareable and understandable across different roles like product managers and designers.

Leveraging LLMs and Deterministic Checks

Jain advocated for a balanced approach: "Deterministic where you can. LLM where you must." While deterministic checks ensure reproducibility, LLMs can handle fuzzy behavior and subjective judgments. He used an example of verifying a new payment form, where AI agents could browse the application, capture screenshots, and compare them with database snapshots to confirm criteria fulfillment. This provides more robust evidence for reviewers.

The Future of Code Review: Intent over Diffs

The core message was a paradigm shift: "Reviewers review intent. Not diffs." By capturing and leveraging the intent and architectural decisions made during AI interactions, teams can move beyond superficial code checks to more meaningful architectural discussions. Jain encouraged attendees to mine their past review comments to build their own AI Slop Registers, noting that while this process requires initial investment, it compounds over time, reducing future review efforts.

Aviator is currently piloting its "Verify" product, which aims to integrate these concepts. "If you remember one thing from today," Jain concluded, "remember code review is not about code review, it is about getting the alignment."

© 2026 StartupHub.ai. All rights reserved. You may not republish this article in full without a license. Search engines and AI research tools may crawl and summarize for reference. Bulk reproduction or model training requires a license. See our terms.
Daniel Singer

Written by

Daniel Singer

Editor, StartupHub.ai

Daniel Singer is the editor of StartupHub.ai, a technology expert and thought leader on AI and its applications across sectors, from fintech and healthcare to developer tooling and consumer software. He writes and tests the tools covered here thoroughly and regularly, and built StartupHub.ai to give founders, operators and buyers a clearer read on what they are actually being sold.