> **Static analysis, dynamic analysis, and stochastic analysis - ~comp**
> 
> For a long time programmers have had two types of program verification tools, static analysis (like a compiler's checks) and dynamic analysis (running a test suite). I find myself using LLMs to analyze newly written code more and more. Even when they spit out a lot of false positives, I still find them to be a massive help. My workflow is something like this: Commit my changes Ask Claude Opus "Find problems with my latest commit" Look though its list and skip over false positives. Fix the true positives. git add -A && git commit --amend --no-edit Clear Claude's context Back to step 2. I repeat this loop until all of the issues Claude raises are dismissable. I know there are a lot of startups building a SaaS for things like this (CodeRabbit is one I've seen before, I didn't like it too much) but I feel just doing the above procedure is plenty good enough and catches a lot of issues that could take more time to uncover if raised by manual testing. It's also been productive to ask for any problems in an entire repo. It will of course never be able to perform a completely thorough review of even a modestly sized application, but highlighting any problem at all is still useful. Someone recently mentioned to me that they use vision-capable LLMs to perform "aesthetic tests" in their CI. The model takes screenshots of each page before and after a code change and throws an error if it thinks something is wrong.

tl;dr: Static analysis, dynamic analysis, and using large language models (LLMs) like Claude Opus to analyze code can help catch issues that may be missed by manual testing.