71–80 of 89 posts
Is not working with gpt5.x models (Unsupported parameter: 'max_tokens' is not supported with this model. Use 'max_completion_tokens' instead.) which is hardcoded. I dont know why this is on the front page. My review-with-codex skill is working just fine, consuming my usage and not API tokens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you got downvoted, and I have nothing against CodeRabbit, but this comment feels a bit like a paid ad :) How do you see CodeRabbit against other AI code review solutions? E.g. cubic.dev, Qodo, Graphite, Greptile, Baz, Augment Code... An alternative UI to GitHub is well overdue. But once someone will get it right, everyone will copy them...
That’s exactly why I’m getting downvoted, and I get it tbh. I knew people would ask for recommendations. It’s ok. I haven’t used any of the tools you mentioned. We started using coderabbit just this year. The new PR review UI just came out. It’s made for big AI reviews which internally we’re trying to rein in. I like the direction they’re moving in with that, it uses AI to help you rather than bypass you. So you have…
https://gitlab.com/redhat/edge/ci-cd/ai-code-review
Has anyone experience with that one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've tried many AI code review tools. Nothing comes close to the depth of CodeRabbit reviews. It's the only such tool that can find real logical bugs. I'd love to be able to get Claude Code to do similar quality of review, but I can't get it right, no matter how I try.
Even if this was true, it’s hard to believe, and written a bit like an ad. Eg no vendor would get me to write a comment like this. All the more so, I tried CR and my team asked me to remove it. Maybe they got better but it’s a bit weird to me considering they only charge $20 and Claude Code say they estimate the same cost for a single PR for their competing product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't you simply ask codex in another tab to just do a code review? You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code. I typically use Opus for code editing and GPT 5.5 for peer review using an automation with skills. Training set is different between models. If there are gaps in coverage in one model, you want a different model reviewing the work. The second model…
> You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code There’s no evidence of this. I guess you are anthropomorphising models (i.e., it’s good that - different human reviews your code)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't you simply ask codex in another tab to just do a code review? You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code. I typically use Opus for code editing and GPT 5.5 for peer review using an automation with skills. Training set is different between models. If there are gaps in coverage in one model, you want a different model reviewing the work. The second model…
> You are likely to get better results if you do not use the same model for review that wrote the code There’s no evidence of this. I guess you are anthropomorphising models (i.e., it’s good that - different human reviews your code)