There is an AI code review bubble
greptile.com
There is an AI code review bubble
1–10 of 265 posts
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#2I don't really understand how this differentiates against the competition.
> Independence
Any "agent" running against code review instead of code generation is "independent"?
> Autonomy
Most other code review tools can also be automated and integrated.
> Loops
You can also ping other code review tools for more reviews...
I feel like this article actually works against you by presenting the problem and inadequately solving them.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#31. I absolutely agree there's a bubble. Everybody is shipping a code review agent.
2. What on earth is this defense of their product? I could see so many arguments for why their code reviewer is the best, and this contains none of them.
More broadly, though, if you've gotten to the point where you're relying on AI code review to catch bugs, you've lost the plot.
The point of a PR is to share knowledge and to catch structural gaps. Bug-finding is a bonus. Catching bugs, automated self-review, structuring your code to be sensible: that's _your_ job. Write the code to be as sensible as possible, either by yourself or with an AI. Get the review because you work on a team, not in a vacuum.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#4I don't really understand how this differentiates against the competition. > Independence Any "agent" running against code review instead of code generation is "independent"? > Autonomy Most other code review tools can also be automated and integrated. > Loops You can also ping other code review tools for more reviews... I feel like this article actually works against you by presenting the problem and inadequately so…
> Independence
It is, but when a model/harness/tools/system prompts are the same/similar in the generator and reviewer fail in similar ways. Question: Would you trust a Cursor review of Claude-written code more, less, or the same as a Cursor review of Cursor-written code?
> Autonomy
Plenty of tools have invested heavily in AI-assisted review - creating great UIs to help human reviewers understand and check diffs. Our view is that code validation will be completely autonomous in the medium term, and so our system is designed to make all human intervention optional. This is possibly a unpopular opinion, and we respect the camp that might say people will always review AI-generated code. It's just not the future we want for this profession, nor the one we predict.
> Loops
You can invest in UX and tooling that makes this easier or harder. Our first step towards making this easier is a native Claude Code plugin in the `/plugins` command that let's Claude code do a plan, write, commit, get review comments, plan, write loop.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#5None of these tools perform particularly well and all lack context to actually provide a meaningful review beyond what a linter would find, IMO. The SOTA isn't capable of using a code diff as a jumping off point.
Also the system prompts for some of them are kinda funny in a hopelessly naive aspirational way. We should all aspire to live and breathe the code review system prompt on a daily basis.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#61. I absolutely agree there's a bubble. Everybody is shipping a code review agent. 2. What on earth is this defense of their product? I could see so many arguments for why their code reviewer is the best, and this contains none of them. More broadly, though, if you've gotten to the point where you're relying on AI code review to catch bugs, you've lost the plot. The point of a PR is to share knowledge and to catch st…
2. There is plenty of evidence for this elsewhere on the site, and we do encourage people to try it because like with a lot of AI tools, YMMV.
You're totally right that PR reviews go a lot farther than catching issues and enforcing standard. Knowledge sharing is a very important part of it. However, there are processes you can create to enable better knowledge sharing and let AI handle the issue-catching (maybe not fully yet, but in time). Blocking code from merging because knowledge isn't shared yet seems unnecessary.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#7I liked that the post is self-aware that it's promoting its own product. But the writing seemed more focus on the philosophy behind code reviews and the impact of AI, and less on the mechanics of how greptile differs from competitors. I was hoping to see more on the latter.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#8Problem with Code Review is it is quite straightforward to just prompt it, and the frontier models, whether Opus or GPT5.2Codex do a great job at code-reviews. I don't need second subscription or API call when the first one i already have and focus on integration works well out of the box.
In our case, agentastic.dev, we just baked the code-review right into our IDE. It just packages the diff for the agent, with some prompt, and sends it out to different agent choice (whether claude, codex) in parallel. The reason our users like it so much is because they don't need to pay extra for code-review anymore. Hard to beat free add-on, and cherry on top is you don't need to read a freaking poems.
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#9Contrary to some of the other anecdotes in this thread, I've found automated code review to discover some tricky stuff that humans missed. We use https://www.cubic.dev/
Re: There is an AI code review bubble
#10None of these tools perform particularly well and all lack context to actually provide a meaningful review beyond what a linter would find, IMO. The SOTA isn't capable of using a code diff as a jumping off point. Also the system prompts for some of them are kinda funny in a hopelessly naive aspirational way. We should all aspire to live and breathe the code review system prompt on a daily basis.
I agree that none perform _super_ well.
I would argue they go far beyond linters now, which was perhaps not true even nine months ago.
To the degree you consider this to be evidence, in the last 7 days, the authors of a PR has replied to a Greptile comment with "great catch", "good catch", etc. 9,078 times.