I mostly ignore how the code was made and review the artifact the same way I always have: correctness, tests, readability, and whether it matches the system design. The prompt history is fine, but it’s not something I want to rely on during review because it’s not stable or reproducible.
What does help is requiring a short design note in the PR explaining the intent, constraints, and alternatives considered. That gives the context reviewers actually need without turning the review into reading a chat transcript.
I find looking at anomalies instead of giant entitlement lists makes a lot more sense.