Stick it in manual mode, laboriously approve all operations so it doesn't blow past code changes. Read, understand, and correct if necessary said changes.
If the change was substantial, spawn separate agent who coordinates a review swarm.
Read dozens of findings, fix some, question why others even happened in the first place. Repeat if you had to change a bunch of code, but usually jettison this loop after two iterations.
Create MR, review overall diff because Claude Code sucks at giving necessary context for many changes. Go back to implementation if not happy.
Put it up for review. Depending on who you choose: argue code comments or do another round of the previous loop(they have the same skill and just AI vomited on your MR).
Defang the completely separate AI review your MR receives when leaving draft mode lest the lazy human reviewer agrees with it.
I try to do most of that from Claude Code. Most of my tickets take about two thirds of Opus context by the end, not counting the review. I really dislike interacting with MRs via Claude. It's verbose to a disgusting degree and if I don't watch it like a hawk, I end up inflicting these really bloated MRs on people that don't deserve it.
