ai-agents developer-tools code-generation software-development

Stop sending me huge PRs; a rant

getsmall.xyz

August 14, 2026

2 min read

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

54/100

Summary

Large pull requests (PRs) can complicate the review process, making it difficult for maintainers to manage code changes effectively. Smaller PRs are preferred for their ease of review, benefiting both the reviewer and the overall development workflow.

Key Takeaways

Large pull requests (PRs) hinder the review process and should be avoided for better digestibility and understanding.
The time required to comprehend code increases exponentially with the number of lines, making small PRs more efficient for reviewers.
Comments should be concise, and well-named variables should reduce the need for lengthy explanations.
AI tools can expedite coding but should not be used to justify submitting large PRs for human review.

Read original article

View story →

Coverage & discussions

Hacker News · getsmall.xyz

Stop sending me huge PRs; a rant ↗

Community discussions

Hacker News discussion ↗

Historical count: 5 · 5 saved in sample · Historical sample

Analysis ready

Community Sentiment

Mixed

Positives

Some users are finding LLMs effective at breaking down complex tasks into manageable workstreams, which streamlines the coding process and enhances productivity.
One commenter highlights success with LLMs handling the tedious work of rewriting commit history, turning a soul-crushing task into a more manageable one.
There's a suggestion to implement AI checks in CI that could help enforce reasonable PR sizes, potentially improving the review process and making it easier for developers.

Concerns

Several commenters express frustration that models struggle with creating small PRs efficiently, indicating a significant resource overhead and context limitations that hamper their usefulness.
There's skepticism about the practical utility of LLMs for producing reviewable PRs, as many feel that they often miss the mark without careful prompting.
One user warns against the tendency of some reviewers to demand excessive splitting of PRs, which can undermine the intent of the code and lead to unnecessary complications.