How the Claude Code team does code review: let Claude review first, then hand it to humans
In "How the Claude Code team does code review," Addy Osmani, Morgan Westlee Lunt, and Qing Wang argue that instead of asking "did a human read the code," we should ask "what could go wrong with this change, and which kind of check should catch it." Code review thus shifts from a gate at the end of a PR to something continuous, with most changes already reviewed and fixed at least once by Claude before a human looks at them.
Body
#smallhead
16th October 2026
We think "did a human read the code?" is an imprecise proxy for "what could go wrong with this change, and which check—automated or human—is the right one to catch it?"
Asking that question also changed when review happens. Before, review was a gate at the end of the road: write the code, open a PR, wait for your colleague.
Now, review runs continuously, more like spellcheck while you write. Most changes have been reviewed and fixed by Claude at least once before a human is asked to look. This catches most routine mistakes, and saves team attention for higher-level questions and scrutiny.
— Addy Osmani, Morgan Westlee Lunt, and Qing Wang, How the Claude Code team does code review
Posted 16th October 2026 at 10:06 pm
Recent articles
Hello Python 3.15, goodbye 3.10, and now I can use 3.11 - 12th October 2026
A new feature for my blog, built using my voice - 9th October 2026
Claude Haiku 5.5 - 7th October 2026
We're going to need default hard budget caps on pretty much everything - 3rd October 2026
This is a quotation collected by Simon Willison, posted on 16th October 2026.