The artifact review approach makes sense to me. How the code was produced doesn't change what the reviewer needs to answer: does this do what it's supposed to, and does it do it cleanly? If anything, I'd rather have a short design note in the PR – intent, constraints, alternatives considered – than a full prompt history. The prompt history is noise; the intent is signal.
That said, one thing review can't fully cover is runtime behavior under real traffic. Not saying that's a review problem – it's just a separate layer that still needs attention after the merge.
Great point on the flow state with pseudo code. The gap I keep running into is what comes after – once the translated code ships to production, knowing quickly whether it actually behaves as intended is still mostly manual. Curious if others have thoughts on that part of the loop.
That said, one thing review can't fully cover is runtime behavior under real traffic. Not saying that's a review problem – it's just a separate layer that still needs attention after the merge.