How to Review Code You Didn't Write (AI Output)

You can participate in review without understanding every line, but screenshots and an agent’s summary cannot certify an implementation. For consequential changes, get a reviewer who can inspect the relevant code and trust boundaries.

Connect the diff to the requirement

Read the changed-file list. Ask why a permission rule, database operation or deployment setting changed during a visual task. GitHub’s review guide describes commenting, requesting changes and approving a pull request.

Request a plain-language explanation, then confirm it against the diff and behaviour. “The button is hidden” is not proof that the server rejects an unauthorised request.

Inspect the boundary

For stored records, check saving and later reading. For private records, test two accounts and direct requests. For payments, use test credentials and inspect amount calculation plus repeated requests. For secrets, check the source, browser bundle and logs without publishing the values.

MDN’s security overview explains input and access risks. A green build is useful evidence for the checks it ran; it does not prove that untested behaviour is correct.

Ask for a reviewable result

Prefer a focused change with an acceptance example and a recovery plan. Test the original issue and an unaffected neighbour. Record what you checked and what you still cannot assess.

VibeGym provides scenario decisions and explanations to practise this judgment. Its 28-day Challenge guides work in your own tool; it does not provide human review of your project. See debugging AI code for collecting evidence after a failure.

Sources checked 2026-10-03

• GitHub pull request reviews — checked 2026-10-03.
• MDN website security — checked 2026-10-03.
• Supabase row-level security — checked 2026-10-03.