Is there anything wrong with having my expert coders manually analyze their own code?

The most rudimentary method by which programmers perform static source code analysis is manually on screen or by printing the code and checking the printout for problems. Such a manual code review might be sufficient for expert programmers working on simple applications, but it forces the organization to rely entirely on the expertise of the programmer, provides no documentation trail, and leaves the code subject to human error. The more complex the code, the more programmer-hours it takes to conduct a sufficient manual review, and the less likely the analysis will identify problems that can eventually result in significant expense or risk to the organization.

Static analysis is faster and less prone to error than manual code review. It accomplishes what would often be virtually impossible by manual methods: a thorough, accurate review that checks for all known component or language interactions. Static analysis enforces coding standards and produces software complexity metrics.