AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and ChatGPT have revolutionized software development. They promise to make us 10x more productive, write boilerplate code instantly, and solve complex problems in seconds. But there's a dark side emerging that's quietly eroding code quality across engineering teams worldwide.
I'm witnessing a dangerous pattern, especially among junior and mid-level engineers: they're treating AI coding tools like magic wands instead of power tools. The result? Code reviews have become battlegrounds, technical debt is piling up, and senior engineers are drowning in review fatigue.
Let me tell you what's really happening behind closed doors in engineering teams right now.
The "Generate and Submit" Anti-Pattern
Here's the scenario I'm seeing play out multiple times a week:
Monday Morning: Sarah, a developer with 2 years of experience, gets assigned a ticket to implement a new feature—let's say adding pagination to a product listing API.
Monday Afternoon: She opens her AI coding tool, enables agent mode, describes the task, and watches the magic happen. Within 20 minutes, the AI has generated 300 lines of code across 5 files. Tests pass locally. Victory!
Monday Evening: Sarah creates a pull request with minimal description: "Added pagination feature as requested."
Tuesday Morning: The code reviewer, Tom (a senior engineer), opens the PR and his heart sinks.
What Tom Discovers (And Why He's Frustrated)
As Tom digs into the code, he finds:
The AI used a completely different pagination pattern than the rest of the codebase. The project uses cursor-based pagination, but the AI implemented offset-based pagination.
Dependencies were added without consideration. The AI pulled in a new library that duplicates functionality already available in the codebase.
No error handling for edge cases. What happens when someone requests page -1? Or asks for 10,000 items per page?
Tests exist but don't test the right things. They verify the happy path but miss the critical edge cases that will break in production.
Code style violations everywhere. The team uses async/await consistently, but the AI mixed in Promise chains. Variable naming doesn't match conventions.
Security concerns. The pagination parameters come directly from user input without validation—a potential DoS vulnerability.
Tom starts writing comments. Then more comments. After 30 minutes, he's left 23 comments on the PR. He's frustrated. Sarah is going to be frustrated. The feature that "took 20 minutes" will now take days to fix properly.
The Real Cost: It's Not Just About Time
Code Reviewers Become Quality Gatekeepers (And They're Exhausted)
When engineers don't take ownership of AI-generated code, the entire burden of quality assurance shifts to reviewers. What should be a collaborative refinement process becomes an adversarial inspection.
Tom isn't just reviewing Sarah's understanding and implementation choices anymore—he's essentially reviewing the AI's output, which Sarah never validated herself.
This creates several problems:
- Review fatigue: Senior engineers spend hours fixing problems that should never have reached the PR stage
- Bottlenecks: The review process slows down dramatically when PRs are full of issues
- Reduced trust: Reviewers start to distrust everything in the PR, even the parts that are actually good
- Burnout: Good engineers leave teams where they feel like they're constantly cleaning up after others
The Dangerous "Approve Anyway" Phenomenon
Here's where it gets really scary: sometimes reviewers give up.
After leaving 15-20 comments on multiple PRs from the same person, after watching deadlines slip, after being labeled as "too picky" or "blocking progress," some reviewers just... approve the PR anyway.
They think: "Maybe it's not that bad. Maybe I'm being too strict. We need to ship this feature."
And that's how technical debt creeps in. That's how bugs make it to production. That's how codebases become unmaintainable nightmares where nobody wants to touch anything because they don't understand how it works.
Why This Happens: The Psychology Behind the Mistake
Understanding why engineers fall into this trap is crucial to fixing it.
1. The Illusion of Completion
When AI generates code and tests pass, our brains release dopamine. We feel accomplished. The task appears done. This psychological trick makes us skip the critical verification step.
2. Imposter Syndrome and AI Dependence
Junior engineers sometimes feel: "The AI is smarter than me, so its code must be better than what I could write." This leads to blind trust instead of healthy skepticism.
3. Pressure to Ship Fast
In fast-paced environments, there's pressure to close tickets quickly. AI tools promise speed, and engineers feel pressure to deliver that speed, even at the cost of quality.
4. Lack of Experience with Code Reviews
Newer engineers may not realize that submitting a PR is claiming "I believe this code is production-ready." They think of PRs as "rough drafts for others to fix."
How to Use AI Coding Tools Responsibly: The Right Approach
AI coding tools are incredible when used correctly. Here's the framework that separates great engineers from those who create PR nightmares:
Step 1: Let AI Generate, But Stay in Control
✅ DO: Use AI to scaffold code, suggest approaches, write boilerplate
❌ DON'T: Let AI agent mode run unsupervised for 20 minutes
Generate code in small chunks. Review each section before moving to the next. Think of AI as a very fast junior developer—you wouldn't let a junior write 300 lines without checking in.
Step 2: Understand Every Single Line
Before you commit ANY AI-generated code, ask yourself:
- What does this code actually do?
- Why did the AI make these specific choices?
- Are there better approaches that fit our codebase patterns?
- What could go wrong with this implementation?
If you can't explain the code to a colleague, you don't understand it well enough to merge it.
Step 3: Validate Against Your Codebase Standards
Open your project's style guide, architecture docs, and similar existing code. Compare:
- Coding patterns: Does this match how we do things?
- Dependencies: Is this library already available? Is there a team-approved alternative?
- Error handling: Does this match our error handling patterns?
- Testing approach: Do the tests match our testing philosophy?
Step 4: Think Like a Code Reviewer BEFORE You Submit
Review your own code as if you're the harshest reviewer on the team:
- Read every line critically
- Check edge cases and error scenarios
- Verify naming conventions and code style
- Look for security vulnerabilities
- Test beyond the happy path
- Add comments for non-obvious decisions
Use your AI tool to help: "Review this code and find potential issues."
Step 5: Write a Thoughtful PR Description
A good PR description shows ownership:
## What Changed
Added cursor-based pagination to the product listing API
## Why These Decisions
- Used cursor-based pagination (consistent with our users API)
- Leveraged existing PaginationHelper utility instead of adding new dependency
- Added validation to prevent requesting > 100 items per page (DoS protection)
- Included tests for edge cases: empty results, invalid cursors, boundary conditions
## Testing Done
- Unit tests pass
- Manual testing with various cursor values
- Verified behavior with empty database
- Load tested with 10,000 concurrent requests
## Questions for Reviewers
- Should max page size be configurable or hard-coded?
- Thoughts on returning total count in response? (Requires additional query)
This description tells reviewers: "I thought about this. I made conscious decisions. I tested thoroughly."
For Engineering Leaders: How to Fix This Problem
If you're leading a team experiencing this issue, here's how to address it:
1. Set Clear Expectations
Make it explicit in your team guidelines:
"Using AI coding tools is encouraged, but you are responsible for understanding and validating all AI-generated code. Submitting a PR means you claim ownership of the code quality."
2. Implement Pre-PR Checklists
Create a checklist that must be completed before opening PRs:
- [ ] I understand every line of code in this PR
- [ ] Code follows our style guide and patterns
- [ ] I've tested edge cases and error scenarios
- [ ] I've checked for security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Dependencies are necessary and approved
- [ ] Tests cover the right scenarios
3. Pair Junior Engineers with Mentors
Before opening their first few PRs with AI-generated code, have juniors walk through their code with a senior engineer. This teaches them what "production-ready" actually means.
4. Make PR Comments Educational
When reviewing AI-heavy PRs, don't just say "fix this." Explain WHY it's a problem:
"This approach doesn't match our pagination pattern. We use cursor-based pagination because it performs better with large datasets and provides stable results when data changes. See
users_controller.rbfor the pattern to follow."
5. Celebrate Good AI Usage
When someone uses AI well—generating boilerplate, then carefully validating and adapting it—call it out publicly. Positive reinforcement shapes behavior.
The Future: AI as a Copilot, Not an Autopilot
AI coding tools aren't going away. They're getting more powerful. But that makes responsible usage even more critical.
The best engineers I know use AI to:
- Accelerate exploration: "Show me 3 different ways to implement this"
- Handle tedious work: "Generate the boilerplate for these 10 similar functions"
- Learn faster: "Explain why this approach is better than that one"
- Catch mistakes: "Review my code for security issues"
But they NEVER blindly trust AI output. They treat it like a very capable junior developer who needs supervision.
The Bottom Line
AI coding tools are power tools. In the hands of a skilled craftsperson, they enable incredible productivity. In the hands of someone who doesn't understand what they're doing, they cause damage.
The solution isn't to stop using AI tools. It's to use them responsibly.
Before you click "Create Pull Request," ask yourself: "Would I be comfortable defending every decision in this code in a design review? Do I understand it deeply enough to debug it at 2 AM when it breaks in production?"
If the answer is no, you're not done yet.
Your future self—and your code reviewers—will thank you.
Have you experienced this problem on your team? How do you balance AI productivity with code quality? Share your experiences in the comments below. If this resonated with you, share it with your team—starting this conversation is the first step to solving the problem.
Tags: #SoftwareEngineering #AICoding #CodeQuality #CodeReview #EngineeringCulture #TechnicalDebt
Top comments (0)