How do you review pull requests written by coding agents?

[EmersonBraun]

Pull request descriptions can sound convincing even when the change is hard to verify. The question I keep coming back to is simpler: can another person reproduce the claim before approving it?

We published a new Agents Playbook guide that turns one review rule into executable evidence. It starts with an unsafe TypeScript any, proves the gate catches it, replaces the boundary with unknown plus runtime narrowing, and runs the same check in CI. It also includes a small evidence block contributors can paste into a pull request.

The workflow is intentionally provider-independent. It works whether the change came from Claude, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, a different agent, or a human. It requires Node.js and Git, but no model API key or commercial account.

Try the guide: https://playbook.agentskit.io/docs/review-agent-authored-contributions

Source: https://github.com/AgentsKit-io/agents-playbook/blob/main/content/docs/review-agent-authored-contributions.mdx

I would especially value concrete answers to these questions:

• Which recurring agent-authored mistake should become the next executable gate?
• Where does the local-to-CI evidence loop break down in your real review process?
• Can you reproduce the workflow with the coding agent and stack you already use?

If you find a gap, open an issue or contribute the smallest useful artifact: one reproduction, one invariant, one actionable gate, and evidence that it fails before the fix and passes afterward. If the workflow helps, starring Agents Playbook also tells us this is an area worth expanding.