Up your game with async agents w/ Jessie Frazelle

In this episode, we talk with Jessie Frazelle (Zoo, Oxide, ACM Queue) about what it takes to get real value out of async AI agents in your dev workflow. We covered: - Why most AI code review agents add noise—or worse, false confidence - The distinction between agents that summarize vs. agents that spot real bugs - How async agents shift from "helpful suggestions" to "actual second opinions" - Lessons from shipping code across Rust, TypeScript, and C++ with async agents watching - What makes a high-signal bot: sparse comments, zero hype, and earned trust - The line between tooling you use vs. tooling you start depending on Jessie walks through experiments across dozens of tools: where they failed, what stuck, and why one async agent quietly earned a spot in her team’s stack.

Channel: Zed IndustriesGenerated by anonymousDuration: 43mPublished Aug 26, 2025
Thumbnail for Up your game with async agents w/ Jessie Frazelle ▶ Watch on YouTube

Video Chapters

Original Output

0:00 Begin your journey: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous AI agents unpacked
2:36 The early struggle: When AI code summaries fell short
4:35 To comment or not to comment: Defining AI's true value
9:40 Beyond replacement: AI's true role in augmenting human review
13:41 A game-changer appears: Discovering the power of Diamond-Graphite
15:06 Catching the uncatchable: Diamond identifies a subtle math error
18:12 From math to logic: Diamond's impact on critical code flaws
20:47 The true strength: AI as your ultimate second pair of eyes
23:40 The core promise: Finding the bugs humans just can't see
25:56 The golden rule: Why low-touch, high-value AI wins

Timestamps by StampBot 🤖

Unprocessed Timestamp Content

0:00 Starting off with synchronous versus asynchronous AI agents
0:59 Initial experiences with PR review bots, mostly low-value
1:51 Overly verbose AI reviews and the questionable value of summaries
2:36 The unreliability of AI agents generating accurate code summaries
3:26 Unnecessary bot comments cluttering pull requests: just don't!
4:05 Coderabbit-ai's confusing comments on a simple readme change
4:35 The debate: should bots always comment or only add value?
5:04 Jessie explains the annoyance of constant low-value bot chatter
6:19 Graphite's CI integration and helpful, non-intrusive feedback
7:10 Greptile-apps bot provides a summary and simple "LGTM"
8:00 More Copilot examples: often unhelpful and easily ignored
9:00 CodiumAI-Agent's review guide: vague, verbose, low-value text
9:40 AI agents aiming to replace, not augment, human code review
11:05 Early attempts to increase test coverage using Codex bot failed
12:15 Human developers find bot-generated tests often lacking quality
13:06 Codex-generated pull requests for reducing API data size
13:41 Diamond-Graphite emerges as a surprisingly useful AI tool
14:24 Diamond bot finding subtle mathematical inconsistencies in code
15:06 Specific example of Diamond bot catching a real math bug
16:29 Diamond's ability to learn custom languages and find errors
17:24 The positive impact of Diamond: focused, clear, and valuable suggestions
18:12 Real-world examples of Diamond catching critical logic bugs
18:56 Jessie and her colleague's humorous attempts to troll the bot
19:27 The bot flags "non-serious feedback," proving its sensitivity
20:47 The actual value of AI: a second pair of eyes, not a replacement
21:55 The dilemma of blind acceptance versus verifying bot suggestions
22:50 Diamond bot excels at finding deeply hidden mathematical errors
23:40 The core value: a bot finding bugs humans would otherwise miss
24:20 Overview of the diverse tech stack and AI tools utilized
24:50 Gemini, Claude, and general AI capabilities for coding
25:56 Final takeaway: low-touch, high-value AI is the sweet spot

Timestamps by StampBot 🤖