Job mechanical-change-across-codebase-as-reviewed-batch-pull-requests · revised 12 October 2026
Make one repetitive change across up to 200 places, as small pull requests you can review
One change rule, agreed with examples, is applied to every matching place (up to 200) as small pull requests. Leftovers are listed, tests equal the baseline and none is weakened.
You might be seeing
- A search shows hundreds of matches and no one wants to start
- Part of the change was done by hand and the rest is forgotten
No passwords, keys, card details or admin invites needed to start.
What usually happened
Repetitive changes across a codebase are boring and risky: a missed site breaks later, a wrong site breaks now, and one huge pull request cannot be reviewed. Agents can do the edits, but review is the bottleneck, and they can also invent imports and drop tests.
Who it’s for: A lead with a chore nobody has time for: replacing a deprecated call, renaming an API, changing a log format, adding licence headers, swapping a test helper.
Usually starts when: A deprecation date, an API rename or a policy change means hundreds of places need the same edit.
The result: One change rule, written with before-and-after examples, is applied to every matching place, up to 200, in one repository as small pull requests of at most an agreed size. A search on the final branch finds no unchanged match except listed exclusions, and build and tests equal the baseline with none weakened. You review a sample and every exclusion.
Check whether this job fits
Answer these without sending code, tickets or logins. Nothing is submitted unless you choose to contact us.
What you get
- The pull requests
- The change rule and examples
- The exclusion list
- The baseline and final test results
- The revert plan
Included
- One repository, one change rule with before-and-after examples agreed in writing, and up to 200 matching places
- A search pattern that you approve in writing and that defines every match
- Small pull requests of at most an agreed size (default 300 lines), on a fork or branch, built from a deterministic script where one is possible
- An exclusion list for places that need judgement and a revert plan, rehearsed once
- Baseline build and test results before and after
Not included
- Places where each change needs a judgement call; they are listed as exclusions
- Feature work, redesign or behaviour change
- Deploying or merging
- Fixing tests that were already failing
- More than 200 matches unless quoted
How we know it’s done
Agreed with you before work starts. Each check produces evidence you keep.
The agreed search pattern run on the final branch returns no unchanged match, except places on the exclusion list. Your maintainer also runs one search of their own, written before seeing ours, and it finds no unchanged match either.
Evidence: The search output on the final branch and the exclusion list.
Build and tests equal the baseline, with no test removed, skipped or loosened, and every pull request is within the agreed size.
Evidence: The baseline and final results, and a script check of every diff.
Your maintainer reviews a 10% sample of changed places chosen by script, plus every exclusion, and finds no wrong change.
Evidence: The sample, the seed and the maintainer's verdicts.
The revert plan applied to one pull request on a copy returns the code to the baseline.
Evidence: The rehearsal log.
Sign-off. Your maintainer reviews the sample and exclusions and signs off in writing. You merge under your rules. Payment follows sign-off.
If it fails. If the agreed checks do not pass, you do not pay for this fixed scope. We hand over what we found and agree whether to stop or re-quote; no surprise work.
When it fits, and when we stop
It fits when
- A change expressible as a rule plus examples
- A passing build and tests, or a regression suite first
- A maintainer who reviews a 10% sample and every exclusion, and merges
We stop and tell you if
- Each site needs a human decision, so it is feature work
- There are no tests and none can be added first
- The baseline build is already failing
What could go wrong
Close a pull request and your default branch is unchanged. After merge, the revert plan, rehearsed once on a copy, restores the earlier state. We change no settings.
Scroll the table sideways to read it all.
| Risk | How we handle it |
|---|---|
| A subtle behaviour change slips through. | Tests must equal the baseline, a 10% sample plus every exclusion is reviewed by a person, and diffs are scanned for weakened tests. |
| Review load becomes the bottleneck. | Pull requests are small and grouped, and the size cap is agreed before work. |
| An agent invents an import or package. | The build must pass, and new imports and packages are listed and checked against the registry. |
A separate automated reviewer checks the work before hand-over. Your named maintainer reviews a 10% sample and every exclusion, and merges under your rules. No human supervisor is included unless your agreement names one, and at launch the work is largely automated.
How we deliver
We arrange the work and independent review, then show you the result against the agreed checks. You keep authority over your systems.
- Agree the rule, examples, search pattern, size cap and exclusions in writing
- Run the search and record the match list and the baseline tests
- Apply the rule by script where possible; by agent only where not
- Split into small pull requests; run the tests on each
- Separate automated reviewer checks every diff for weakened tests and invented imports
- Hand over the pull requests, exclusion list and rehearsed revert plan
This is a one-off job, not emergency cover or a subscription. We confirm eligibility, price, start window and delivery date before you accept, and work starts only after agreed inputs, secure access and permissions are in place. Model usage up to a cap we state in writing is in the price, and an enquiry creates no charge or booking.
Need to keep it working?
For bigger or ongoing change work, the engineering lane or the backlog project can follow.
Ongoing work is separately scoped and quoted: no monitoring, response-time guarantee or automatic subscription is included in this job.
Mention the responsibility you need in your enquiry.
What you can check
This is a new service. We have not delivered this job for a client yet.
Other ways to get this done
- Use a codemod or your editor's structural search and replace for a pure rename; review the diff by hand.
- Break the chore into one directory per week and assign it to different developers.
Questions
What if a place needs a judgement call?
It goes on the exclusion list and you decide. We do not guess.
Will you merge the pull requests?
No. You review and merge under your own rules.
How is this different from a named upgrade like Express 4 to 5?
Those are fixed stack moves. This one applies a rule you define to your own code.
Send an enquiry
Send us
- The change, a few examples and roughly how many places
- Your language and test setup
- No code in the first enquiry
Later, once you agree
- Read-only code through a company-controlled route and a fork or branch for the pull requests
- The written rule and examples
- The name of your reviewing maintainer
You keep the repository, CI, secrets and merge rights. We use a dedicated bot account with the least access that works (read-only first), work on a fork or branch, and you merge. Our automated agents read the files you send in a sandbox; we make no "no training" or "no storage" promise here, and the agreement names the model provider, country, retention and training status before anything is shared.
Email fallback: open your mail app
If website submission is unavailable, review and send the fallback email yourself. An email fallback is not a website receipt. Or write to hello@syntheticindustry.ai with “mechanical-change-across-codebase-as-reviewed-batch-pull-requests” as the subject.