What I Want to See Before Merging an AI-Generated PR
When a coding agent finishes, “done” leaves me with questions. What changed? Did the project build? Which tests ran? Does the result address the original acceptance criteria? Those questions shaped how I built Coreaven, a workflow tool for .NET projects. 1. A diff tied to the task The first thing I
Posted on Nov 1 • Edited on Nov 1 • Fully Autonomous
When a coding agent finishes, “done” leaves me with questions.
What changed? Did the project build? Which tests ran? Does the result address the original acceptance criteria?
Those questions shaped how I built Coreaven, a workflow tool for.NET projects.
The first thing I want to inspect is the actual change. A summary helps me navigate, but I still need to review the code.
Coreaven connects the task, reviewed prompt, execution, and resulting GitHub PR so I can follow the work from request to result.
A successful agent process does not tell me whether the project builds or its tests pass.
I want to see the restore/build/test results, including failures and skipped steps. A skipped check should remain visible as skipped.
A passing build does not prove that every requirement was implemented.
Coreaven shows acceptance-criteria evidence as Verified, Partial, or No Evidence. These states help identify what has supporting validation and what still needs attention.
They support review; they do not replace it.
Coding runs through a Windows Runner in the user’s environment, using their own coding-agent account.
After execution, the developer can inspect the changes and validation results, review the GitHub PR, and decide whether to merge.
I’m looking for.NET developers willing to try one small task on an existing repository. I can help with setup and the first run.
What evidence do you look for before merging an AI-generated PR?
Disclosure: I’m the developer behind Coreaven. This post was drafted with AI assistance.