reviewing-ai-generated-codelisted

# Reviewing AI-generated code: fluent is not correct Model-written code reads well, which is exactly the risk: it is optimized for plausibility, and a reviewer's guard drops when the code is clean and confident. The security failures cluster in predictable places, dependencies that may not exist or may be attacker-registered, defaults copied from insecure examples, validation quietly omitted, and logic that looks right but is not. Reviewing it means aiming at those clusters, not skimming for style. ## When to use - You are reviewing an AI-authored change, an assistant's suggestion, or a large generated diff. - Generated infrastructure, config, or access-control code is entering the codebase. - You are setting a review bar for machine-assisted contributions. ## Scope check Review code for projects you own or contribute to with authorization. If you can't name the authorization, stop. ## The loop 1. **Verify every dependency the code introduces.** For each package the change adds, confirm it exists, is the established package (not a lookalike or a name the model may have invented), and is the one you intend. A hallucinated package name an attacker later registers turns "the model suggested it" into installed attacker code. Do not let a plausible import in unverified. 2. **Check the defaults and the omissions.** Generated code tends to reproduce the most common pattern, which is often the insecure-by-default one: permissive cross-origin rules, disable