21–30 of 52 posts
Interesting: "Reviews are billed on token usage and generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity."
This cost seems wild. For comparison GitHub Copilot Code Review is four cents per review once you're outside of the credits included with your subscription.
https://gist.github.com/rlueder/a3e7b1eb40d90c29f587a4a8cb7c...
An average of $0.04/review (200+ PRs with two rounds each approx.) total of $19.50 using Opus 4.6 over February.
It fills in a gap of working on a solo project and not having another set of eyes to look at changes.
Interesting: "Reviews are billed on token usage and generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity."
I run a PR review via Claude on my own code before I push. It’s exceptionally good. $20 becomes an incredibly easy sell when I can review a PR in 10 minutes instead of an hour.
what are the implications for the tens of code review platforms that have recently raised on sky high valuations?
Same as all the other companies that built on top of the API and then were obsoleted after the API provider made it a built-in feature. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/claude-just-killed-startup-sf...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This cost seems wild. For comparison GitHub Copilot Code Review is four cents per review once you're outside of the credits included with your subscription.
Yea, but copilot review is useless. The noise it generates easily costs that much in wasted time.
> We've been running Code Review internally for months: on large PRs (over 1,000 lines changed), 84% get findings, averaging 7.5 issues. On small PRs under 50 lines, that drops to 31%, averaging 0.5 issues. Engineers largely agree with what it surfaces: less than 1% of findings are marked incorrect. So the take would be that 84% heavily Claude driven PRs are riddled with ~7.5 issues worthy bugs. Not a great ad of age…
It will _always_ find about 8 issues. The number doesn’t change, but it gets a bit … weird if it can’t really find a defect. Part of the art of using the tool is recognizing this is happening, and understanding it’s scraping the bottom of its barrel.
However, if there _are_ defects, it’s quite good at finding and surfacing them prominently.
> We've been running Code Review internally for months: on large PRs (over 1,000 lines changed), 84% get findings, averaging 7.5 issues. On small PRs under 50 lines, that drops to 31%, averaging 0.5 issues. Engineers largely agree with what it surfaces: less than 1% of findings are marked incorrect. So the take would be that 84% heavily Claude driven PRs are riddled with ~7.5 issues worthy bugs. Not a great ad of age…
Interesting: "Reviews are billed on token usage and generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity."
what are the implications for the tens of code review platforms that have recently raised on sky high valuations?
There might still be plenty of room to compete, especially at $15-$25 per review. I'm starting to feel like the right harness makes more difference than the right model. The real competition for both claude and the platforms is a skill running locally against the very same code.