Review the contract first
Confirm that the objective, target paths, and acceptance criteria are still the right boundary. A clean diff cannot compensate for a task that solved the wrong problem.
Answer page
Review the declared boundary, changed paths, validation evidence, and risk areas first, then inspect code where the evidence or scope requires it.
Direct answer
Do not review AI-generated code as an undifferentiated block. First compare the implementation summary with the task scope and validation evidence; then inspect the files and decisions that carry security, behavior, integration, or maintenance risk.
Practical guidance
Confirm that the objective, target paths, and acceptance criteria are still the right boundary. A clean diff cannot compensate for a task that solved the wrong problem.
Changed paths and validation results identify what needs attention. Read the critical logic and integration boundaries deeply rather than treating every generated line as equally risky.
Reconciliation provides one place to record whether each acceptance criterion is met, missing evidence, or needs a follow-up task.
Verified demo evidence
$ day-shift reconciliation build --milestone-overview <milestone-overview>
reconciliation_status: completedAuthorship and sources
Keep exploring
Make coding-agent work reviewable with bounded repository artifacts, named validation, and written implementation evidence.
Read nextThe repository evidence a reviewer needs after agent-assisted implementation.
Read nextHow repository workflow artifacts complement existing pull-request, review, and CI controls.
Read nextFind your answer
Search the answer pages, concept, comparisons, demo, and FAQ without leaving the site.
Search by a problem, workflow step, or tool boundary.