Merge Conflicts
This is the "team velocity" pain point. AI dramatically accelerates individual code generation, but this creates a massive team bottleneck. When multiple developers are generating thousands of lines of code simultaneously, they are constantly colliding in the same files. This leads to a massive spike in the frequency and complexity of git merge conflicts. Without workflows to coordinate these AI-powered changes, the team's "merge hell" effectively cancels out all the individual productivity gains.
AI tools don't just change one line at a time; they perform large-scale, "whole file" refactors and additions in seconds. When two or more developers are using AI in parallel on the same part of the codebase, they inevitably generate conflicting changes. This creates a "race condition" where the team's main branch is constantly blocked by complex merge conflicts that are far more difficult to resolve than typical, human-driven changes. The AI, unaware of other developers' work, blindly overwrites or conflicts with changes that were just generated moments before.
This is a critical breakdown in development velocity. The time developers save on writing code is immediately lost (and then some) to the non-trivial, time-consuming task of manually resolving conflicts. Development grinds to a halt as PRs get stuck, and "who merges first" becomes a daily scheduling problem. This also increases the risk of bugs, as it's easy to make a mistake when manually untangling two different, complex, AI-generated sets of logic, leading to broken builds and production regressions.
The "Parallel Refactor" Collision
Developer A uses AI to "refactor the AuthService to use async/await." At the same time, Developer B uses AI to "add a new MFA feature to the AuthService." Both PRs modify the same 15 files in conflicting ways, resulting in a massive, un-mergeable conflict.
The "Dependency Hell" Conflict
An automated AI bot (like Dependabot) updates a library and its related function calls in a PR. A developer, unaware, simultaneously asks their AI to "refactor this module using the old library version," creating an immediate conflict.
The "Cross-Purpose" Change
One AI rewrites a file to "improve code comments and readability." Another AI in the same file "optimizes a function for performance." The resulting merge conflict is a chaotic mess of changed logic and changed comments that a human must painstakingly resolve.
The "Merge Queue" Logjam
The team spends the first hour of every morning just untangling the conflicts from the previous night's AI-assisted work, completely wiping out any velocity gains.
The problem isn't the AI; it's the lack of a human-in-the-loop verification and governance system. These workflows are the perfect antidote.
Daily Merge Discipline
View workflow →The Pain Point It Solves
This workflow directly attacks the "team velocity" problem by enforcing daily merge checkpoints and preventing long-lived branches. Instead of allowing multiple developers to accumulate AI-generated changes over days, this workflow requires frequent merges, reducing the window for conflicts and preventing "merge hell."
Why It Works
It enforces merge cadence. By setting daily rebase or merge-to-main checkpoints, enabling branch-age notifications after 36 hours, and using stacked PRs to ship incremental slices, this workflow ensures that AI-assisted changes are merged frequently and in small batches. This prevents the accumulation of thousands of lines from multiple developers that collide in complex, un-mergeable conflicts.
Keep PRs Under Control
View workflow →The Pain Point It Solves
This workflow addresses the "race condition" problem by enforcing PR size limits and requiring atomic commits. Instead of allowing developers to generate massive, whole-file refactors that are prone to conflicts, this workflow forces smaller, more focused changes that are easier to merge and coordinate.
Why It Works
It prevents large-scale collisions. By targeting ≤250 lines changed per PR, keeping file count under 10, and requiring PR template sections for risk areas, this workflow ensures that AI-generated code is broken down into small, mergeable chunks. This reduces the likelihood of conflicts and makes it easier to resolve them when they do occur, preventing the "merge hell" that cancels out productivity gains.
Want to prevent this pain point?
Explore our workflows and guardrails to learn how teams address this issue.
Engineering Leader & AI Guardrails Leader. Creator of Engify.ai, helping teams operationalize AI through structured workflows and guardrails based on real production incidents.