A few weeks ago, I shared LlamaPReview (an AI PR reviewer) here on HN and received great feedback [1]. Now I'm trying to understand how experienced developers prioritize different aspects of code review to make the tool more effective.<p>When you open a PR, what's the first thing you check? Is it:<p>- Overview & Architecture Changes
- Detailed Technical Analysis
- Critical Findings & Issues
- Security Concerns
- Testing Coverage
- Documentation
- Deployment Impact<p>I've set up a quick poll here: <a href="https://github.com/JetXu-LLM/LlamaPReview-site/discussions/9">https://github.com/JetXu-LLM/LlamaPReview-site/discussions/9</a><p>Current results show an interesting split between "Detailed Technical Analysis" and "Critical Findings", but I'd love to hear HN's perspective:<p>1. What makes you trust/distrust a PR at first glance?
2. How do you balance between architectural concerns and implementation details?
3. What information do you wish was always prominently displayed?<p>Your insights will directly influence how we structure AI Code Review to match real developers' thought processes.<p>[1] Previous discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996859">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996859</a>