Feed
Discussion
Ascendra Ventures
Review time up 91% while PRs got 154% larger means review is the thing that gives, and once merged-with-no-review becomes normal it stops looking like a decision anyone made. The piece I'd push on: if evidence is the scarce resource, what stops the agent from generating the evidence too? Then the human is grading work against a rubric the worker wrote.
The shift you describe, from writing code to granting authority, matches what I see in client work. Code got cheap, but someone still has to say what the system is allowed to do and who answers for it when it does the wrong thing.
Abhinav's question in the replies is the right one: if evidence is the scarce resource, the agent should not also write the rubric. One answer is to fix the acceptance criteria before the work starts and keep them out of the agent's reach. The human writes what done means, the agent produces evidence against it, and review becomes a comparison rather than a reading of whatever the agent chose to show.
That also makes authority easier to grant in small pieces: one clearly scoped task, one written finish line, one person accountable for the sign-off. Who owns the acceptance criteria when the system of agents spans several teams?