Oversized PRs
This is the "AI firehose" pain point. A developer, supercharged by AI, can generate thousands of lines of code in an afternoon, creating a massive code review bottleneck. Without AI-aware workflows that enforce small, atomic commits, developers are tempted to batch all their AI-assisted changes into one giant Pull Request (PR). These "monster PRs" are notoriously difficult to review, allowing critical bugs, security flaws, and "AI Slop" to slip through the cracks and into production.
AI tools make it incredibly easy to refactor entire modules, generate hundreds of unit tests, or scaffold new features in a single session. This encourages developers to lump multiple, unrelated, AI-generated changes into a single PR. Reviewers are then faced with an unmanageable wall of text (e.g., 40+ files changed, +3000 lines) that is too large to review effectively. This cognitive overload means the review process degrades from a critical quality check into a rubber-stamping exercise, as reviewers are unable to spot subtle logic errors.
This directly increases the defect rate and leads to more production regressions, as bugs that would have been caught in a smaller review are missed. It also grinds the release cycle to a halt, as "monster PRs" become a major bottleneck, sitting in review for days. This creates a vicious cycle: developers, blocked by long review times, are encouraged to batch even more changes into their next PR, making the problem worse and slowing down the entire team's velocity.
The "One-Click Refactor" Disaster
A developer uses an AI tool to "refactor the entire service." The AI renames variables and changes patterns across 40 different files. This single PR, which has +2000 lines, is impossible to review, and a subtle, breaking change is missed.
The "Kitchen Sink" PR
A developer generates code for three different features and a bug fix all in one go, resulting in a 1,500-line PR. Reviewers have no idea which changes map to which ticket.
The "Generate All Tests" PR
A developer asks the AI to generate unit tests for an entire module, creating a +5,000 line PR that is 90% boilerplate. Buried inside is a flawed test that passes but doesn't actually test the business logic, giving a false sense of security.
Reviewer "Approval Fatigue"
A reviewer opens a 400-line PR, scrolls through it for 30 seconds, and hits "Approve" because they don't have the two hours required to actually review it, allowing "AI Slop" and bugs to merge.
The problem isn't the AI; it's the lack of a human-in-the-loop verification and governance system. These workflows are the perfect antidote.
Keep PRs Under Control
View workflow →The Pain Point It Solves
This workflow directly attacks the "AI firehose" problem by enforcing PR size limits (≤250 lines changed) and requiring developers to break large changes into smaller, atomic PRs. Instead of allowing developers to batch thousands of lines into one "monster PR," this workflow forces them to create multiple, reviewable PRs that can be effectively audited.
Why It Works
It enforces PR size limits. By targeting ≤250 lines changed per PR, keeping file count under 10, and requiring PR template sections for risk areas, this workflow ensures that AI-generated code is broken down into reviewable chunks. This prevents cognitive overload and rubber-stamping, allowing reviewers to effectively spot bugs, security flaws, and "AI Slop" before merge.
Daily Merge Discipline
View workflow →The Pain Point It Solves
This workflow addresses the "AI firehose" problem by enforcing daily merge checkpoints and encouraging stacked PRs. Instead of allowing developers to accumulate weeks of AI-generated changes into one massive PR, this workflow requires frequent merges and incremental slices, preventing the "monster PR" bottleneck.
Why It Works
It enforces merge cadence. By setting daily rebase or merge-to-main checkpoints, enabling branch-age notifications after 36 hours, and using stacked PRs to ship incremental slices, this workflow ensures that AI-assisted changes are merged frequently and in small, reviewable batches. This prevents the accumulation of thousands of lines into a single, unmanageable PR that becomes a bottleneck and increases defect rates.
Want to prevent this pain point?
Explore our workflows and guardrails to learn how teams address this issue.
Engineering Leader & AI Guardrails Leader. Creator of Engify.ai, helping teams operationalize AI through structured workflows and guardrails based on real production incidents.