Skip to content

brief-code-review-exec-2026-05-09.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
44 lines (30 loc) · 4.33 KB

brief-code-review-exec-2026-05-09.md

File metadata and controls

44 lines (30 loc) · 4.33 KB
Raw

Exec Brief — AI Code Review GA — 2026-05-09

To: SVP Eng, VP Product, GM Developer Tools From: PM, Agentic Developer Tools Audience: Executive Status: Decision brief — pre-launch readout

TL;DR (the so-what)

We are shipping AI Code Review to the design-partner cohort on Monday 2026-05-12 with a CONDITIONAL launch-readiness verdict. The two P0 eval fails from Wednesday's run are closed — the prompt + dedupe fixes landed Thursday and the P0 subset re-ran clean Friday morning. Two non-P0 readiness items remain open by design: this brief itself (you're reading it) and the first /eval-drift baseline (fires automatically Monday). Confidence: high that we hit the North Star (median PR time-to-first-review < 4h on 80% of opted-in PRs within 60 days). The premortem flagged three failure stories; mitigations for stories 1 and 2 are in the build, story 3 (cost margin) is being tracked separately under metrics, not blocking GA.

Three numbers that matter

  1. Eval P0 pass-rate after Thursday's fixes: 11/11 (100%) on the re-run subset; full suite re-ran 12/12 on Friday afternoon. (Source: ./eval-runs/code-review-eval-2026-05-06/summary.md)
  2. Pre-launch baseline TTFR: 19h median, p90 41h on the three design-partner repos. North Star at GA: < 4h on 80% of PRs in 60 days. (Source: ./prd-code-review-2026-05-05.md §5)
  3. Per-PR cost: $0.35 mean, $1.42 max on the 12-case eval — within the $1.50 ceiling defined in metrics, but the 200-PR production cost validation is the one number that can still kill the SKU. We get that number in week 2 of GA. (Source: ./metrics-code-review-2026-05-06.md, Premortem failure story #3)

What we're shipping

The Must-have set from the PRD: auto-summary on PR open, severity-tagged inline risk comments, suggested reviewers based on CODEOWNERS + git-blame recency, and one-click agree/dismiss with reason capture. New installs default to major+ severity only (post-Premortem-mitigation-2); telemetry includes a "bot disabled" event so we detect mass-mute within 24 hours, not the 11 days that the premortem warned about.

Scope cuts vs. early thinking: no auto-merge on AI approval (humans approve), no whole-codebase indexing this version (Greptile is ahead; ship without and revisit), no cross-repo refactor suggestions.

Risks I'm watching

  • Severity calibration on the long tail. Eval covered 12 cases; production sees PR shapes the eval doesn't. Mitigation: P0 subset re-runs on every prompt change; full suite weekly through month 1. (Eval YAML: ./eval-code-review-2026-05-06.yaml, failure mode fm-6.)
  • Comment overload despite the conservative default. Premortem story #2 fired in week 1 of dogfood at a different company; the new default + "bot disabled" telemetry should catch this within a day if it recurs.
  • Cost margin at p90 PR size. Premortem story #3 — the 200-PR production cost study runs in week 2 of GA. If p90 cost is above the gross-margin line, the prompt chunks before the price changes.

Asks

  1. Sign-off to ship Monday 2026-05-12 with the CONDITIONAL verdict and the two acknowledged gaps. (See ./launch-readiness-code-review-2026-05-09.md.)
  2. 30-minute slot the week of 2026-05-26 to walk through the first /eval-drift and the production cost numbers — that's the meeting that decides whether we expand beyond design partners.
  3. No new Must-haves for v1.1 until GA + 30 days. Adoption signal is the lever, not feature surface area.

Source artifacts (in chronological order)