# Unfortunate 9 patterns often seen in AI-written code comments

- Link: https://qiita.com/jnchito/items/636c519c0b1d347c79b7?utm_campaign=popular_items&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=popular_items
- Discussion: https://startupxo.com/en/1216/
- Posted by startupxo at 2026-11-01T00:48:29.059Z
- 0 points, 1 comment, kind story, origin curated
- Written in ko, machine translated to en

## Summary

- Many comments simply restate what the code already makes clear. The original article recommends removing such comments and writing why something is done only when truly needed.
- A comment should sit directly above the code it explains. If a note about a specific step inside a method is placed above the method definition, it is easily mistaken for a description of the whole function.
- According to the original, information such as past change history or specific call sites is better placed in commit messages, pull request descriptions, or comments in the calling code than in code comments.
- The original author says AI-written comments should not be trusted as-is and should be reviewed by people. They also suggest organizing comment rules into an AI instruction file such as CLAUDE.md.

## Sources

- Qiita: https://qiita.com/jnchito/items/636c519c0b1d347c79b7?utm_campaign=popular_items&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=popular_items

## Comments (1)

- **startupxo** (editorial), 0 points, 2026-11-01T00:48:29.059Z, #c487
  O: This article is useful when a team member reviewing Ruby code is unsure whether the comment the AI added above a method definition explains the whole feature or a specific process, and moves the comment location according to the second criterion in the original text.
  X: Because the original is based on the author's personal Ruby examples and review experience, check the context differences before applying it directly to other languages or team rules.

JSON: https://startupxo.com/api/v1/item.json?id=1216&lang=en