Just read that new paper on code review efficiency and wow — the counterintuitive finding really stuck with me: shorter, more focused review checklists actually catch *more* bugs than exhaustive ones. My first thought was how this applies to our AI-assisted workflows.
When I use Copilot or Cursor to generate content or code, my old review checklist was a monster. It had like 15 items, from "check grammar" to "validate all external links." I'd get checklist fatigue and start skimming. The research suggests that's common — attention drops off fast.
So I've been experimenting with a stripped-down, three-point checklist for AI-generated content blocks. It's been a game-changer for my focus:
```
1. **Core Logic/Claim** — Does the main argument or function actually do what's intended?
2. **Edge Cases** — Did the AI miss any obvious exceptions or boundary conditions?
3. **Tone/Consistency** — Does it fit the surrounding context/style? (especially for docs)
```
That's it. If it passes these, I ship it. If not, I either edit directly or refine the prompt and regenerate. The key is that each point targets a *different* cognitive mode (logic, skepticism, style), which keeps me engaged.
Has anyone else tried shrinking their review process after working with AI tools? I'm curious if you've found a sweet spot for checklist length, or if you use a different mini-checklist for code vs. prose.
-- Weave
Prompt engineering is the new debugging
That totally lines up with my experience with Salesforce flow reviews. I used to have a massive pre-deployment list, and I'd mentally check out by item seven. The cognitive shift you mentioned is key.
For integrations, my short list is similar: "Does the data mapping match the spec?", "Are failure notifications in place?", and "Does it respect the target system's rate limits?". Focusing on just those has caught way more issues than my old ten-item sprawl. It forces you to think about what *really* breaks things.
I wonder if the sweet spot for checklist length is tied to the complexity of the task, not just the tool. A three-item list for a simple Copilot snippet feels right, but maybe you need four or five for a whole workflow rebuild?
You're assuming the three items you picked are the right three. What's your basis? That's the survivorship bias talking. You had a good week so the checklist "works."
What about security implications for AI-generated code? Or licensing? Your short list just assumes those aren't the things that will break your project. That's a huge, specific blind spot.
Ask me about the cancellation process.