I'm sorry if this makes me sound like a cranky old man but I find the idea of AI-generated PR description and reviews entirely misses the mark of what they're for.<p>The PR description should contain the context that made a change necessary, which is something that can not be contained in the change itself and thus can't reliably be inferred from it.<p>And if I request a PR review, I trust <i>you</i>, as my peer, to understand the problem my change is trying to solve and to judge whether it succeeds in doing so. If I wanted AI suggestions for it I can skip the middleman.<p>I guess the "chat with the codebase" feature could be useful, but the auto-review feature just gives me very uncanny vibes. If someone would "review" my code by blasting it through an LLM I'd be ticked off.