HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

dearilos

no profile record

Submissions

Show HN: Wispbit - Linter for AI coding agents

wispbit.com
31 points·by dearilos·9 bulan yang lalu·14 comments

Show HN: Wispbit – Keep codebase standards alive

wispbit.com
3 points·by dearilos·11 bulan yang lalu·0 comments

[untitled]

1 points·by dearilos·11 bulan yang lalu·0 comments

Show HN: Open Source AI Code Review Agent for Teams

github.com
2 points·by dearilos·12 bulan yang lalu·0 comments

Ask HN: How did you find your early adopters?

1 points·by dearilos·12 bulan yang lalu·0 comments

Ask HN: How are you reviewing code if you are mandated to use AI?

2 points·by dearilos·tahun lalu·0 comments

comments

dearilos
·8 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Put up guardrails to enforce quality code.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We’re fixing this slop problem - engineers write rules that are enforced on PRs. Fixes the problem pretty well so far.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We’re trying to solve a similar problem, but using linters instead over at wispbit.com
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We're trying to solve a similar problem at wispbit - this is an interesting way to do it!
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We use ast-grep for the determinism part. I should have clarified - we don’t charge for fully deterministic runs. Only ones where the LLM is involved as a judge.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
It supports fully deterministic rules, which we use LLMs to help you write.

Agreed on all of this too. This is why we built the CLI tool - to shift left the work.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We combine determinism + LLMs to catch things a human would normally have to. If the LLM finds a violation, it generates a comment.

Big agree on the CLI being open and letting you bring your own inference provider. We’re holding off on it until we get more feedback from some of our hardcore users.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
<3
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
We do a two week trial and then it's $0.2 per file reviewed. Buying in bulk + optimizing rules gives a significant discount.
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Love it :) Thank you!
dearilos
·9 bulan yang lalu·discuss
This is pretty much what I’m solving. LLMs need a “linter” of sorts that can guide them to write good code.
dearilos
·10 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I'm building something to solve exactly that - automating all the boring and repetitive parts of code review.
dearilos
·10 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I'm building something to do exactly that - just reduce and automate the boring parts of code review like enforcing standards.
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
problem with the tools you're using is that they're not built for code review

im building one that lets you write and enforce your own rules so you don't get the typical slop

email in profile if you'd like to try it - i can send you a link
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
i'm taking an approach where we scan your codebase and keep rules up to date

you can enforce these rules in code review after CC finishes writing code

email ilya (at) wispbit.com and ill send you a link to set this up
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
do you use anything today for automated code reviews?
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
ive been building out a directory of code review rules for the last couple of months!

are you open to chatting and sharing notes on what works/doesn't work?

my email is ilya (at) wispbit.com
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
I'm actually building something like this.

A code review tool that can be ran by Claude Code (and other tools like cursor, kiro, windsurf) where it does the first pass.

You can also define the rules on how code should be reviewed, and we have a free library of prompts for common code review checks.

I didn't see a way to contact you in your bio so please reach out - ilya (at) wispbit.com - and I can give you access.
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
Do you use any tools to help with the code review part?
dearilos
·12 bulan yang lalu·discuss
How has that worked out so far?

I'm building something similar and I found that code review with LLMs is really good when:

- You give it specific rules. I built a directory for these because they made the reviewer so much better [1]

- The rules you write are things your team already looks for during review (proper exception handling, ensuring documentation, proper comments, etc.)

[1] https://wispbit.com/rules