Any software teams adopt coderabbit.ai or similar tools to their team workflow after adopting agentic assisted coding? I’m genuinely curious because I’ve noticed that agentic coding only gets you to the next bottleneck which is reviewing code.

Sprint planning as a new grad is a foreign language. Is it normal to feel so confused? Every time we do sprint planning, I feel completely out of the loop. The senior devs speak entirely in acronyms and base their estimates on decisions made years ago. As a junior, I have zero context and feel like I'm falling behind. Is this standard new-hire confusion, or should I be worried?

Valuable metrics are a quiet superpower. What are some you like to pay attention to? Here are some GH metrics that have helped me: 1. PR Cycle Time — how long from PR open to merge. If this spikes, something's blocking the team. 2. Review Load per engineer — who's doing 11 reviews while others do 1? 3. Stale PRs — PRs sitting unreviewed for 5+ days are a team health signal, not just a delivery signal. 4. Deploys per week — Teams that ship frequently have fewer big-bang releases and lower stress

What’s your take on oversized Pull Requests? Knowing that it’s the norm of AI assisted development, automation hasn’t still caught up with humans reviewing the changes.. I would and still reject overly large PRs for reasons outside of testing and fixtures.

What’s the “worst” codebase you’ve ever worked in? I oversee a handful of legacy of inherited services and am finding incremental ways to deprecate/sunset what I can. It has a ton of dead code but it isn’t even the worst I’ve seen. Projects with old libraries that aren’t supported, database layers woven in, and no linting/types.