A review compares a proposed change with the intended behavior and relevant project constraints. It can identify logic mistakes, unclear assumptions or unnecessary modifications that a passing test alone may not reveal.
Review and testing provide different kinds of evidence. Reviewers should inspect the actual changes and relevant context, while behavior checks assess how the software runs. Neither a confident explanation nor a clean-looking diff alone guarantees correctness.
ELI5
Code review is checking what a software change actually does before accepting it. The reviewer compares the change with the requested result and looks for problems.
For example, a filtering change might accidentally show completed items when the user selected unfinished items. A reviewer can spot the reversed condition, and a behavior test can confirm that the corrected filter works.
Does passing tests remove the need for review?
Not necessarily. Tests can miss requirements or risks, and review can examine aspects the existing checks do not cover.
Is reviewing an agent's explanation enough?
No. The actual proposed changes and relevant behavior should be examined, rather than relying only on the agent's summary.
