From Typing to Trust: Staying Comfortable Reviewing Code in a CLI-First World
There is a quiet anxiety that creeps in the first time you let a CLI agent change real code.
You run the command.
Hundreds—sometimes thousands—of lines are modified.
No editor tabs. No blinking cursor. No familiar rhythm of keystrokes.
And suddenly, you realize something uncomfortable:
“I didn’t touch this code… but I’m still responsible for it.”
This article is about that moment—and how experienced engineers learn to stay calm, confident, and in control when coding shifts from writing to reviewing.
The Core Discomfort Isn’t the CLI
Let’s be precise:
The problem is not that the tool is a CLI.
The problem is that the CLI removes interaction as reassurance.
In traditional IDE workflows, comfort comes from:
- typing every line
- seeing code evolve incrementally
- feeling the logic “lock in” as you write it
CLI agents break that loop.
They produce results before your intuition has time to form.
That gap—between execution speed and mental validation—is where unease lives.
The Real Role Shift: From Author to Owner
When you work with agents, your role changes in a subtle but profound way.
You stop being:
- a line-by-line author
You become:
- a change owner
- a risk manager
- a scope enforcer
This is not a downgrade.
It is a move up the abstraction ladder.
The discomfort you feel is the same discomfort senior engineers feel when they:
- stop fixing bugs directly
- start approving PRs they didn’t write
- become accountable for outcomes, not keystrokes
This is cognitive ownership replacing mechanical ownership.
Why “Just Reading the Diff” Is Not Enough
Many engineers try to solve the discomfort by reading more.
That fails.
Why?
Because human working memory does not scale linearly with diff size.
When changes are large:
- your brain stops building a mental model
- review becomes pattern-spotting, not understanding
- confidence drops even if the code is correct
The solution is not deeper reading.
The solution is better structure.
Comfort Comes From Constraints, Not Visibility
This is a key insight many people miss.
You don’t feel safe because you see everything.
You feel safe because you know what cannot happen.
Comfort increases dramatically when:
- scope is explicitly limited
- directories are protected
- change intent is stated before code appears
- unrelated refactors are forbidden
In other words, safety comes from constraints, not omniscience.
Make Git Your Primary Interface (Emotionally, Not Just Technically)
In IDE-driven work, Git is often an afterthought.
In CLI-agent workflows, Git becomes your UI.
Not just for versioning—but for reassurance.
What matters is not:
- “Can I open the file?”
But:
- “Can I see exactly what changed?”
- “Can I undo this instantly?”
- “Can I isolate this change from everything else?”
When rollback is trivial, fear evaporates.
Diffs Should Be Navigable, Not Endured
Raw diffs are hostile to the human brain.
Large changes must be:
- file-by-file
- hunk-by-hunk
- intention-by-intention
Once diffs become navigable, something important happens:
You stop reacting emotionally to size and start evaluating correctness.
That is the moment comfort returns.
The Most Overlooked Rule: One Intent per Agent Run
Many teams struggle because they let agents do too much.
Comfort collapses when:
- refactors mix with logic changes
- formatting mixes with behavior
- “while we’re here” changes sneak in
Experienced users enforce a hard rule:
One run, one intent.
Not because the agent can’t do more—
but because humans can’t review more with confidence.
Trust Is Built Through Predictability, Not Perfection
You do not need the agent to be flawless.
You need it to be predictable.
Predictability comes from:
- consistent file boundaries
- repeatable patterns
- clear summaries of what changed and why
Once patterns repeat, your brain relaxes.
You stop asking:
“Is this correct?”
And start asking:
“Does this match the pattern I expect?”
That shift is everything.
Reframing VS Code: From Cockpit to Inspection Window
Many engineers think adopting CLI agents means abandoning the IDE.
That is a mistake.
The IDE doesn’t disappear—it changes purpose.
It becomes:
- a diff inspector
- a context browser
- a sanity-check tool
You don’t drive from it anymore.
You verify from it.
This separation actually reduces cognitive load.
Tests Are Emotional Infrastructure
Tests are often discussed as correctness tools.
In agent workflows, they are something else entirely:
They are emotional stabilizers.
When tests pass:
- uncertainty drops
- review becomes faster
- fear of “hidden damage” fades
The more automated validation you have,
the less you need to “understand everything at once.”
What You’re Probably Still Missing
A few subtle but critical considerations:
1. Long-Term Readability Matters More Than Short-Term Speed
Agents can produce code that works but erodes clarity.
Comfort today can become confusion six months later.
2. Architectural Drift Is the Silent Risk
Without guardrails, agents may slowly blur boundaries humans care about deeply.
3. Ownership Must Be Explicit
Someone must be able to say:
“This part of the system is mine.”
Otherwise responsibility dissolves.
4. Emotional Fatigue Is Real
Constantly reviewing large changes is draining.
Smaller, scoped runs are not just better—they are sustainable.
The Final Reframe: Comfort Is a System Property
You will never feel comfortable because:
- you read every line
- you understand everything instantly
You will feel comfortable when:
- changes are scoped
- intent is explicit
- diffs are clean
- tests pass
- rollback is cheap
- ownership is clear
At that point, it no longer matters whether the code was typed by you, an IDE, or a CLI agent.
Control returns—not through interaction, but through structure.
And once that clicks, the workflow stops feeling alien.
It starts feeling…
quietly powerful.
Comments ()