<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Chris Fairbanks</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Chris Fairbanks (@chris2fair88).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/chris2fair88</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/chris2fair88"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>AI Slop🤮</title>
      <dc:creator>Chris Fairbanks</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 13:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/chris2fair88/ai-slop-35am</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/chris2fair88/ai-slop-35am</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There's a term developers have started using for what's piling up in their pull requests: AI slop. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Not an insult to the tools. A name for the specific kind of low quality, plausible looking code an agent produces when nobody's watching closely enough.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you lead a small engineering team, you've probably felt this even without a word for it. Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code made writing code faster than ever. They didn't make the part that actually protects you faster: making sure what got written is correct, secure, and won't quietly become next quarter's incident report.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The numbers back up the feeling:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;AI generated code carries meaningfully more issues than human written code, including a higher rate of the critical and major kind&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;One security study found AI coding tools producing vulnerable code in roughly 4 of 10 security critical tasks&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Review time on many teams now regularly beats writing time. You're not saving hours, you're just moving where they go&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐭𝐨 "𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲" 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦. 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐞.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The teams handling this well aren't reviewing harder, they're reviewing differently, routing effort to where AI is known to fail: logic edge cases, security patterns, architecture fit, long term debt. Not a generic checklist that treats all code the same.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I'm putting together a full framework for this: a 4 layer review stack sized for small teams, no enterprise tooling required.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Curious what's biting your team the hardest right now. Drop it below, it's shaping what I write next.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>webdev</category>
      <category>programming</category>
      <category>claude</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
