21–30 of 50 posts
I don't use these tools, but wouldn't it be better to use them only after you do a manual review to see if they find anything you missed? Otherwise I could see reviewers getting false confidence and doing a less thorough review. This happens with seeing that unit tests pass.
I mostly use CodeRabbit via GitHub PR https://www.coderabbit.ai/
Besides local review via codex and Claude code, we are using GitHub Copilot with custom instructions. We just assign it as a reviewer in GitHub and a couple minutes later, the review is done. It raises a lot of issues which are valid and which I never had found. https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/tutorials/customize-code-...
What I use for: I use for identifying duplicated code. It is deterministic, doesn't use AI, offline, runs from CLI and is super fast (and free).
What I dislike: I won't say it I dislike, but it is not a tool that does all the jobs of a code review. For instance, it doesn't flag security issues. It is superfocused on code duplication (it performs better than Sonar for this use case) and is specifically useful for large codebases. Disclaimer: I am one of the collaborators, so take it with a grain of salt https://github.com/Rafaelpta/dupehound
/review in claude code - the skill pulls the PR from remote and review it. Can post comments also.
Honestly I get awful results using this skill. The output is way better when I simply ask it to review the changes on my branch compared to origin/main