Opulent Review
Review organizes complex changes, traces relationships across the work, and proposes focused revisions.
Review answers questions with broader context than a diff alone carries: what else touches this, what did the earlier version do, which acceptance criterion does this satisfy.
Review adds coverage, but the person shipping the work still owns the decision. Check every finding against the actual change and the acceptance criteria.
Reviewing agent work
Treat generated work like work from any other contributor. Inspect it, test it, challenge its assumptions, and understand it before it goes out under your name.
The practical version: read the diff, open the document, check the source links, watch the recording, and read the exceptions. The completion message points at the work. It does not replace looking at it.
What makes review fast
- A named artifact rather than a description of one.
- Evidence attached to the claim it supports, not collected at the end.
- Exceptions listed separately from completed work.
- A diff or redline rather than a rewritten whole.
- The smallest review surface that still supports a responsible decision.
When review becomes a rubber stamp
If every run comes back approved without comment, either the workflow is genuinely reliable or the review has stopped being real. The way to tell is whether exceptions are ever routed. A workflow that never produces an exception is usually a workflow whose exception rules are too loose.
Route exceptions and consequential decisions explicitly rather than relying on a reviewer to catch them in a summary.