It's not just that it's impossible for a human reviewer to productively review a 6000-line blob (I mean, at least if it were a sequence of commits that you can follow or something...). It's impossible for a human reviewer to productively sit in the loop with a review agent and judge its output in any objective capacity.
Is that a good way to write software? No. Does it produce good software? Also no. Am I going to fret over it and fight for proper engineering quality standards, thus doing the job that's supposedly meant to be done by the people who get multi-million bonuses on bad fiscal years when they fail to meet every single objective, wave the company card for 2,000-dollar dinners, and take two-year sabbaticals? Not until I get my multi-million failure bonus, at least 2K in steaks and tequila, and my two-year sabbatical.
Is it very likely that said software is eventually going to become unmaintainable and the company will eventually crash out? Absolutely -- but my job literally ends at saying so.
https://lobste.rs/c/vjgdcp
