I'd say AI code review is a good starting point. For instance, having one thing review code for CVEs, I've found that very useful. Another review agent for looking at typical things like static analysis violations, or not adhering to DRY, or 10,000 lines of code in one class, whatever makes the code less maintainable and more expensive technical debt wise. Then you still need a human in the loop to validate what the reviewers (agents) are recommending and what the agent that wrote the code did as well (if the agent submitted the PR, even if a human did it I'd still have a human review it). It can augment what reviewers typically do day-to-day but definitely doesn't replace them. Here's why: if the system breaks at 3 am and you're losing millions of dollars a minute because it's down, you can't email / call the agent and say, "fix the broken code you allowed into the repo". (at least not yet).