I’ve been experimenting with a way to make code reviews more understandable - turning tricky pull requests into short comic strips.
The blog post shows an example generated from a real PR: summarizing the changes, anthropomorphizing the components, and making the flow visually obvious. It’s meant to help reviewers grasp intent quickly and make reviews a bit more fun.
Curious whether others have tried visual or narrative aids in their review process, and whether this could be practical for real teams.
Using visual approaches, including comics, is a reasonable idea I've been looking into personally as well (mostly using style transfer from manga). :)
But, the actual concepts communicated need to be clear. In your example strip here, it doesn't seem to be meeting that bar for a reviewer. :(
Keep at it though, as I get the feeling this is the kind of thing that will work after a few important "aha!" ideas and tweaks happen to the generating process. :)
I really like the idea... but I have to admit my first visceral reaction was "I hate this". I think it's because the tone and style is quite infantile/childish. A good experiment nonetheless. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere?
I think this kind of slop has negative value. It's unclear how much of the information in the comic is hallucinated, and the malformed code "for i = i1+|>" and nonsense text "(starts write hooks!" doesn't bode well.
I didn't have any trouble with the comic but I do already know these things about how react hooks work so I'm not going in fresh.
I think it's a little whimsical, perhaps too much for what info it conveys (a bullet list with the same component names would probably be equally informative), but I thought it was easy to understand and follow. I think there is -something- here; I don't need THIS comic but if it was more about the context and goals of the change then maybe that would be powerful. Especially if it was consistently done over many PRs.
You actually might be on to something... AI aside, it's often a good idea to include visuals in a PR such as diagrams.
But having something like a comic where it's both visual and communicative in a more conversational/narrative way could prove pretty effective. Also if you can throw some humour in there, it could potentially add even more comprehensibility, etc.
not sure about for pull requests, but for protocols it could be interesting.
I asked it to generate a comic for https negotiation over tcp https://imgur.com/a/0p0Pzum I think with a bit more prodding it might be interesting for documenting protocols
It seems to me the level this comic is at is such that anyone who needs an aid like this would not be capable of providing a meaningful review on the pull request.
If the goal is to encourage rubber-stamping by bystanders, it might help.
I’ve been experimenting with a way to make code reviews more understandable - turning tricky pull requests into short comic strips.
The blog post shows an example generated from a real PR: summarizing the changes, anthropomorphizing the components, and making the flow visually obvious. It’s meant to help reviewers grasp intent quickly and make reviews a bit more fun.
Curious whether others have tried visual or narrative aids in their review process, and whether this could be practical for real teams.
This could be a fun way to educate the judge about why my opposing counsel's position is laughably wrong.
Sadly, the fun would end with a reprimand or sanctions order. Cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43866303 ("Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits").
Might work for bringing associate attorneys up to speed in a new case, or for teaching concepts to law students, though!
Using visual approaches, including comics, is a reasonable idea I've been looking into personally as well (mostly using style transfer from manga). :)
But, the actual concepts communicated need to be clear. In your example strip here, it doesn't seem to be meeting that bar for a reviewer. :(
Keep at it though, as I get the feeling this is the kind of thing that will work after a few important "aha!" ideas and tweaks happen to the generating process. :)
I'm not against it, but this particular strip seemed a little incoherent. It might need manual storyboarding.
I really like the idea... but I have to admit my first visceral reaction was "I hate this". I think it's because the tone and style is quite infantile/childish. A good experiment nonetheless. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere?
What’s your line for “childish“?
I’ve been guilty of injecting bits of whimsy, sarcasm, and other unserious behaviors in a corporate We Mean Business environment.
I’ve toned it down because I recognize some people are very resistant to seeing both the serious and humorous aspects of a situation at the same time.
I think it’s a fun idea.
Not sure if it would be used, though. Being on HN front page helps.
It would also have to contain a lot of content, and be indexed well.
Interesting idea but unfortunately the given example comic makes very little sense.
It was difficult to parse even as someone who's familiar with these concepts, and I think it will hurt more than help any newbies.
I think this kind of slop has negative value. It's unclear how much of the information in the comic is hallucinated, and the malformed code "for i = i1+|>" and nonsense text "(starts write hooks!" doesn't bode well.
Exactly my thought. Can anyone here say otherwise?
I didn't have any trouble with the comic but I do already know these things about how react hooks work so I'm not going in fresh.
I think it's a little whimsical, perhaps too much for what info it conveys (a bullet list with the same component names would probably be equally informative), but I thought it was easy to understand and follow. I think there is -something- here; I don't need THIS comic but if it was more about the context and goals of the change then maybe that would be powerful. Especially if it was consistently done over many PRs.
If it’s an addendum then fine. But can’t replace textual review which is much easier to parse, at least for me.
BTW, amazing they chose a review that exemplifies why hooks are a horrible horrible mistake for public API.
We are well and truly doomed. Why not just make it a TikTok.
https://www.revid.ai/tools/text-to-brainrot
You actually might be on to something... AI aside, it's often a good idea to include visuals in a PR such as diagrams.
But having something like a comic where it's both visual and communicative in a more conversational/narrative way could prove pretty effective. Also if you can throw some humour in there, it could potentially add even more comprehensibility, etc.
Thanks for sharing!
not sure about for pull requests, but for protocols it could be interesting.
I asked it to generate a comic for https negotiation over tcp https://imgur.com/a/0p0Pzum I think with a bit more prodding it might be interesting for documenting protocols
Fun little comic :) wish it had more about WHY the rules exist, but I assume that would be hard to squish into a panel
ok fine I'll add another github workflow...
It seems to me the level this comic is at is such that anyone who needs an aid like this would not be capable of providing a meaningful review on the pull request.
If the goal is to encourage rubber-stamping by bystanders, it might help.
It's valuable to make a difficult task easier, even for those who could do the task without the help.
I'd rather just have a high-level summary in English for that.
This seems to take dumbing-down beyond any sensible level.
People who dumb down seem to think it's easier to be dumb. Not everyone seems to agree, fortunately.
Looks like a fun inclusion
Any code review complicated enough to benefit from this should be split up into smaller units for review.