Does Hal replace code review?
No. Hal structures coding loops and can leave reviewable state, but a developer should inspect output before merging.
FAQ
Hal does not replace code review. It structures AI coding loops so developers can inspect generated state, diffs, reports, and commits.
Why it matters
No. Hal is designed to leave reviewable state, not to make merge decisions for a developer.
Hal does not replace code review. It structures AI coding loops so developers can inspect requirements, stories, changed files, reports, commits, and archive state before deciding what to merge. The developer still owns correctness, testing, security review, and production judgment.
Hal does not replace code review. It creates a workflow around AI coding agents so generated work is easier to inspect.
AI coding agents can produce plausible changes that miss product intent, skip edge cases, or modify files outside the expected scope. A structured loop reduces drift, but it does not prove correctness.
Hal can help preserve the trail around a loop: requirements, stories, runtime state, reports, commits, and archive behavior. Those artifacts make it easier to answer what changed and why.
Do not merge because a loop completed. Merge only after a developer verifies the diff against the PRD and the repository’s standards.
Before adopting Hal, inspect the source repository, current install guide, pricing page, and machine-readable pricing. Do not assume hosted plans, unsupported engines, metrics, or guarantees unless the current source documents them.
Short answers before you put this into an agent workflow.
No. Hal structures coding loops and can leave reviewable state, but a developer should inspect output before merging.
Review the PRD, story status, changed files, commits, reports, tests, and any unresolved acceptance criteria.
Yes. The point is to make agent work bounded and inspectable so review is easier than reading an unstructured chat transcript.
Keep exploring the pieces of a reviewable coding loop.