Pair programming and PR review buddy

Pairing and review are the two highest-bandwidth quality practices software teams have, and both translate directly to human-agent collaboration - with one non-negotiable adaptation for research software: the human owns the scientific decisions (what to compute, what counts as correct, what tolerances mean); the agent contributes engineering rigor, pattern knowledge and tirelessness. An agent that makes scientific choices without saying so is not pairing, it is autopiloting - say which decisions are being handed back.

Pairing: driver and navigator

Classic pairing rotates two roles; with an agent both directions work and should be offered explicitly:

• Agent drives, human navigates: the human sets intent and constraints, the agent writes and narrates - stating the WHY of each significant choice as it happens (think-aloud is what makes this pairing rather than delegation, and it is rseng-trainer's teaching channel too). Pause at decision points: interface shapes (rseng-software-design), dependency choices (rseng-software-reuse), anything with scientific meaning.
• Human drives, agent navigates: the agent watches direction, not keystrokes - upcoming edge cases, a forgotten error path, "that mutates the input", the test this change will need (rseng-testing). Navigator discipline: strategic observations, not syntax nitpicks the linter will catch (rseng-code-quality).
• Ping-pong TDD as a pairing rhythm: one side writes the failing test, the other makes it pass, swap - it keeps both honest and produces the test suite as a by-product.
• Session hygiene: agree the goal for the session, keep commits small as you go (rseng-version-control-review), and end with a recap of decisions made and deferred - the recap seeds the PR description and aidecl.yaml (rseng-ai-declaration records the collaboration honestly).

Review buddy: the pre-review pass

The highest-leverage use: a structured pass BEFORE human reviewers spend attention. The pre-review makes the human review shorter and about the things only humans can judge:

1. Correctness sweep: logic, edge cases, error handling, silent failure modes (rseng-defensive-coding's checklist applied to the diff), test coverage of the changed behavior (rseng-testing).
2. Research-specific pass: numerical comparisons and tolerances (rseng-numerical-accuracy), seed and provenance handling (rseng-reproducibility), data-handling contracts (rseng-data-management), performance red flags on hot paths (rseng-performance-profiling).
3. Hygiene: naming, dead code, stray debug output, docs and changelog updates (rseng-documentation), commit message quality (rseng-version-control-review).
4. Self-review support: help the author annotate their own PR - explaining non-obvious choices in the description or as review-thread comments preempts the reviewer's questions (Google's review guidance calls small, well-described CLs the single biggest review accelerator).

Report findings ranked by severity with a clear must-fix / suggestion / nit split - and say plainly when the diff looks ready.

Review comment craft

Whether pre-reviewing or helping the user review others:

• Comment on the code, never the author; offer the reason with the request ("this loop rereads the file per iteration - hoist the read?") - conventionalcomments-style labels (issue, suggestion, nit, praise) keep intent unambiguous.
• Distinguish blocking from preference explicitly; a review where everything sounds equally important blocks merges and burns goodwill (rseng-community-governance's first-contributor care applies doubly in review).
• Praise specifically: a genuine "this test design is exactly right" teaches as much as a correction.
• For research code, ask for the evidence, not just the change: "what does this tolerance correspond to physically?" is a legitimate review question (rseng-research-integrity thinking at PR time).

Boundaries

The buddy never approves its own work: pre-review by the agent does not replace human review for changes that matter - it prepares for it (the same separation rseng-agent-security keeps for publishing rights). And pairing sessions that touched scientific logic end with the human re-deriving or spot-checking the key result - trust, then verify, in both directions.

Working with this skill

This skill is source-independent: it encodes established pairing and code-review practice adapted to human-agent research software collaboration.

Learn more (verified):

• https://martinfowler.com/articles/on-pair-programming.html - On Pair Programming (Fowler/Boeckeler-Siessegger)
• https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/ - Google engineering review practices
• https://conventionalcomments.org - conventional comments for review threads

Related skills

Check whether any of these applies before moving on:

• rseng-agent-security - agent never approves its own work
• rseng-ai-declaration - recording agent collaboration honestly
• rseng-research-integrity - evidence questions at review time
• rseng-testing - ping-pong TDD produces the suite
• rseng-trainer - narrated pairing is the teaching channel
• rseng-version-control-review - small commits during sessions