How Anthropic's Claude Code team reviews code at agent speed

Anthropic's Claude Code team has shared how it reviews code now that Claude writes about 90% of the product's code. Every pull request gets an AI bug review and a security review, and it cannot merge while any finding is still open. Human sign-off depends on risk: none for low-risk changes like docs once checks pass, one person for normal changes, two for the riskiest paths, and a bot's approval never counts as a person's. The team says merged pull requests more than doubled from June to September while the share that had to be reverted fell by more than 40%. It also caps AI review at three rounds after one pull request went through more than fifty rounds overnight. On Hacker News (196 comments) there is no consensus, and the thread leans sceptical. The biggest camp points to bugs and regressions in Claude Code itself and doubts real review is possible at this volume. Others worry about token cost, docs shipping without a human reading them, and security findings being dismissed without a security specialist. A smaller group says they already run a similar setup and found the checklist useful. Sorted take: You don't need Anthropic's volume to copy the cheap parts: a short REVIEW.md file, a "how to revert" line in every pull request, and risk levels set by what the change touches, not who wrote it.