Yeah true, actually my phrasing was poor. I came to that idea through debate with other coworkers. This is not a solution for gigantic PRs but rather a method on how people should be reviewing AI changes.

Why, yes, blame someone else, and not the person that shat out the PR :)

I had a recent case where I, being the lead, sliced up the work real good into an epic and what not and a guy on the team just did a "hurr durr, Claude, go wild with all that" and threw a huge PR over the wall linked to 5+ stories.

Well, we got to have "the conversation" after that and learned how to fix these kinds of PRs together...

It also means the engineer didn't check in with the lead as their PR became unwieldy.

That is patently false in the real world we live in currently. I constantly see lazy coworkers post 2000 line PRs for a trivial change that their LLM generated when 500 lines might accomplish the same in a better way. It's almost always a lazy human accepting what Claude did by default without any manual review or asking the LLM to do anything differently.

Claude absolutely loves to reimplement the wheel locally instead of just calling a method in a library we already depend on. Every doc comment and README.md update is bloated by 2-5x what's needed to communicate intent or to actually be read by a human later. It makes random drive-by edits that aren't necessary and weren't asked for in the prompt. It's a well oiled machine for producing astronomical bloat by default if you don't supervise and rein it in!