What's the most cost-effective way to review pull requests using a refactoring assistant?

The most cost-effective approach is usually not to run a refactoring assistant on every PR end-to-end. Instead, use it selectively as a second-pass reviewer on the parts that are most likely to benefit.

Best cost-effective workflow

1. Use normal automated checks first

Let your cheap tools handle the obvious stuff:

• unit/integration tests
• linting/formatting
• static analysis
• dependency/security scans

These catch a lot of issues with near-zero marginal cost.

2. Ask the refactoring assistant only on high-value diffs

Run it when a PR has:

• complex logic changes
• large refactors
• performance-sensitive code
• concurrency or state-management changes
• code touching critical paths
• lots of repetition or “mechanical” edits that may hide mistakes

Avoid sending tiny cosmetic changes or trivial docs updates.

3. Limit scope aggressively

The cheapest useful pattern is:

• review only changed files, not the whole repo
• review only the diff, not full file context unless needed
• review only suspicious sections flagged by heuristics or tests
• summarize findings instead of asking for line-by-line commentary

4. Use a two-stage review

A very cost-effective setup is:

1. First pass: assistant scans the diff for likely bugs, missed edge cases, and refactor regressions
2. Second pass: human reviewer checks the assistant’s top findings and judgment calls

This saves human time without paying for broad, redundant AI review.

5. Batch reviews when possible

If your assistant charges per request or token:

• group small PRs together
• review at merge gates, not continuously
• prioritize by risk, not by PR count

6. Make the assistant look for specific failure modes

General “review this PR” prompts are expensive and noisy. Better prompts:

• “Find possible behavior changes from this refactor.”
• “Check for missed null/empty cases.”
• “Look for duplicated logic and invariant violations.”
• “Identify places where tests are likely insufficient.”

Targeted prompts usually reduce token use and increase signal.

Rule of thumb

The most cost-effective use is:

• human review for design judgment
• assistant review for bug-prone detail checking
• automation for everything repetitive

If you want the absolute cheapest practical setup

Use the assistant only when:

• the diff exceeds a threshold
• tests fail or coverage is low
• the files touched are in high-risk areas
• the reviewer marks the PR as “needs deeper inspection”

If you want, I can also suggest a concrete PR review policy or a prompt template optimized for low token cost.