# Best AI Code Review Tools for Claude Code: CodeRabbit vs Greptile vs cubic vs Qodo > Source: > Published: 2026-10-24 00:19:35+00:00 Building on the web these days is as easy as using the next-best AI code generator. AI Agents now write hundreds of lines across half a dozen files in a single session. However, the practices meant to catch problems (review, coding standards, governance) still assume a human typed every line and opened a pull request when they were done. I am building an app right now, and so far Claude Code has just written 400 lines across six files with nothing committed yet. I have vibe-coded apps before without going through this next step. After vibe-coding an app, before you commit, you pick a reviewer that sees that state. I tested Qodo, CodeRabbit, Greptile, and Cubic with that question in mind. ## What a quality layer for coding agents actually has to do | **Evaluation area** | **What should be assessed** | | Context | Can it understand the full codebase, repository relationships, history, and requirements? | | Standards | Can it bring organisational standards into the workflow *before* generating code? | | Review independence | Does it review the coding agent's work independently, rather than asking the agent to grade itself? | | Review quality | Does it find meaningful issues without creating excessive noise? | | Lifecycle coverage | Does it support planning, implementation, local review, PR review and resolution? | | Governance | Can teams enforce and manage standards consistently across repositories and agents? | | Traceability | Are findings, decisions and resolutions recorded and visible? | | Human oversight | Does it help people focus on risks and decisions rather than reviewing every generated line? | The other products in this article primarily help review generated code. Qodo is the product designed as the independent quality and governance layer around the agent generating it. Qodo is described as ["A CLI-powered Quality counterpart for coding agents"](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox), and its skills are organized by workflow stage. ## Claude Code gives a reviewer four doors - An [MCP server](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/mcp) exposes tools the model calls mid-session. Claude Code takes them over HTTP or stdio, and project-scoped servers live in a .mcp.json you commit. Anthropic's docs note that project servers need interactive approval before they connect, and that you can set a per-server timeout in milliseconds. - A plugin comes from a marketplace and can ship slash commands, skills, and its own MCP entry together. /plugin marketplace add owner/repo then /plugin install name is the whole install. - Agent skills are instruction files the agent loads when a task looks relevant. They need no protocol at all. - And then there's Bash. A CLI is a review tool too. The agent runs it, reads stdout, and acts. The four review tools connect to these doors differently. | | **MCP server** | **Claude Code plugin** | **Skills** | **CLI** | | Qodo | yes | marketplace plugin | five skills | qodo | | CodeRabbit | client, not server | /plugin install coderabbit | cr skills | coderabbit / cr | | Greptile | api.greptile.com/mcp | greptile@claude-plugin | /check-pr, /greploop | bundled with the plugin | | cubic | [www.cubic.dev/api/mcp](http://www.cubic.dev/api/mcp) | cubic@cubic | six skills | cubic | CodeRabbit points the protocol the other way. Rather than exposing itself as a server your agent calls, it acts as an MCP client and [consumes your servers as review context](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/integrations/mcp-servers), so requirements living in your issue tracker or docs system reach the reviewer. Useful, but it means Claude Code reaches CodeRabbit through the CLI or not at all. ## Which tool can review a dirty working tree? For [Greptile's CLI](https://www.greptile.com/docs/code-review/greptile-cli): Greptile compares the current branch with the repository's default branch. It reviews committed changes that have not been merged. It ignores uncommitted changes. For a human opening a PR, that's fine. For a Claude Code session that has been editing for twenty minutes and hasn't committed anything, it means the review is blind until you commit. The other three tools read the working tree directly. CodeRabbit reviews tracked changes by default, with --uncommitted for staged and unstaged edits and --include-untracked for anything Git hasn't seen yet. cubic's cubic review goes straight at uncommitted work and only compares against a base branch when you pass -b. Qodo's Review skill takes the local diff plus new untracked files, and [its docs](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-review-skill) are explicit that only the base commit needs to be pushed. Your edits can stay local and unpushed. ## Using Qodo For Code Reviews Qodo is the only tool of the four in this article that treats the whole understand-write-review-resolve-govern cycle as the unit of design rather than attaching a reviewer to the end of it. Qodo's [Agentic Toolbox](https://www.qodo.ai/features/qodo-agentic-toolbox/), [announced September 9th](https://www.qodo.ai/blog/introducing-qodos-agentic-toolbox/), shipped five skills, and they map onto stages rather than features: | **Skill** | **Stage** | **What it does** | | [Get Rules](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-get-rules-skill) (optional) | Write | Retrieves the rules that apply to the current task, before code is generated | | [Codebase Wisdom](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-wisdom-skill) | Understand | Dependencies, cross-repository relationships, impact, and recent changes | | [Review](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-review-skill) | Review | Runs Qodo Review on local changes, using the same engine as its PR reviews | | [Review Resolver](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-review-resolver-skill) | Resolve | Retrieves and resolves findings directly inside the agent workflow | | [Manage Standards](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/manage-standards-skill) | Govern | Create, update, retire, re-scope and triage Review Standards | **Get Rules** moves standards to the front. The other tools in this article will wait until the code exists, then tell your agent what it got wrong. But, Get Rules pulls organisation-wide standards, repository conventions, and whatever guidance applies to the task into context before generation starts. Otherwise you repeat that process twice, once to generate the wrong thing, once to correct it. **Manage Standards** is the governance piece. It is a skill your agent invokes. Admins can create, update, re-scope and bulk-triage the team's Review Standards conversationally from inside the session, rather than switching to the web portal. If you've ever put off tightening a rule because it meant a context switch, that conflict is the reason standards go stale. Non-admin contributions become pending suggestions for admin review, which is what keeps the governance intact. In **Review Resolver**, every finding gets an explicit outcome: fixed with an applied change, skipped with a reason, or reported without changes. It resolves only what your instruction scopes it to. That fixed/skipped/reported contract is what makes traceability possible rather than aspirational. You can read back what the agent did and what it declined to do. ### Understanding The Qodo Review Cycle Here is the cycle end to end, on a single change: adding webhook signature verification to a payments service. **Understand.** Before touching anything, the agent asks Codebase Wisdom what it is walking into. Which services consume this endpoint, what the existing handlers look like, whether anyone has solved this before in a sibling repository, what recent commits touched this path. This is context a forge reviewer never has, because a forge reviewer only sees the diff. **Apply standards.** Get Rules pulls the standards that apply to this task like your organisation's rules on secret handling and request validation, plus whatever this repository specifically requires. The agent now writes against those rules rather than discovering them in review. **Implement.** Claude Code writes the change. 400 lines across six files, nothing committed. **Review independently.** Before any pull request exists, the Review skill runs Qodo's review engine over the local diff plus untracked files. This way, the reviewer is not the agent that wrote the code, and the reviewer is not waiting for a PR to be opened. **Resolve.** Review Resolver pulls the findings back into the session with the fixed/skipped/reported contract. You see what was fixed, what was skipped and why, and what was flagged but deliberately left alone. **Govern.** The convention that came up during the work gets offered as a Review Standard, so the next agent in the next repository starts with it already loaded. Then you open the pull request, and Qodo Code Review continues in the PR workflow with the same engine. ### Getting set up Install it from the Claude Code, Codex, or Kiro marketplace, depending on your preferred choice. For any other setup, or to wire up several environments at once, there's the terminal path documented in the [CLI install guide](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/cli): This is POSIX sh. It requires Node 20 or later. Windows gets a PowerShell line: The installer configures the available Qodo skills for supported agent environments. You can install without a Qodo account, but you need to sign in to use the managed skills. Skills update themselves: the Toolbox checks periodically and refreshes Qodo-managed skills on your next qodo command, without overwriting skills you own or have customized. If you were running the deprecated @qodo/command, installing the Agentic Toolbox makes a best effort to remove it. And for anything MCP-compatible that isn't a supported plugin target, the Toolbox is exposed as an MCP server and drops into your .mcp.json like any other. The next thing is to add its instructions to CLAUDE.md. Qodo publishes a [default template](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-overview#default-template); these two lines changed how the loop behaved for me: ## CodeRabbit Review For machine-readable output CodeRabbit's [Claude Code integration](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/cli/claude-code-integration) is a plugin over a CLI: Then /plugin install coderabbit, and /coderabbit:review, optionally scoped with committed, uncommitted, --include-untracked, or --base main. What makes it good for agents is cr review --agent, which writes one JSON object per line to stdout. Finding events carry a severity from a fixed set (critical, major, minor, trivial, info, none), a fileName, and codegenInstructions, which is the agent-oriented fix instructions, with the human-readable comment as a fallback when it's empty. That is a deliberate piece of API design, and the severity ladder is stable enough to build a CI gate on. In CodeRabbit, reviews may take 7 to 30+ minutes depending on the scope of changes, which is a long stall inside an interactive session. If you drive it through an MCP server rather than the plugin, that per-server timeout field is where you raise the ceiling. **What it does not cover:** everything before the code exists. CodeRabbit consumes context from your MCP servers, which is genuinely useful, but there is no equivalent of retrieving your standards before generation, and no governance surface for managing those standards across repositories. ## Using Greptile For Code Reviews Greptile's [plugin documentation](https://www.greptile.com/docs/integrations/claude-code) puts it plainly: They are two ends of one pipeline. The CLI dispatches reviews; the MCP server reads them back. Installing it means a marketplace add and two separate sign-ins, one for each end: The MCP server authenticates separately through /mcp with the same account and two token stores. /greptile:review dispatches what Greptile calls a headless review, meaning no PR required, and the result is on your account where the MCP tools can read it back with source: "headless". On the MCP side you get nineteen tools spanning pull requests, reviews, comment search, custom context, knowledge bases, and analytics. The custom context group reads and writes: your agent can search existing team patterns and create new ones, which is the closest anything here comes to Get Rules, though it stays discretionary rather than applying at generation time, and it is pattern storage rather than enforceable, scoped organizational standards. **What it does not cover:** the working tree. Greptile ignores uncommitted changes. ## Using cubic For Code Reviews cubic's setup is the shortest here: Then /mcp to finish OAuth. Skills arrive either from npx @cubic-plugin/cubic-plugin install --skills-only, which detects installed agents and configures each one it finds, or from the marketplace at mrge-io/skills. The URL has to be [www.cubic.dev](http://www.cubic.dev) rather than cubic.dev, because some OAuth clients compare the protected resource origin exactly. With cubic auth connect claude-code, cubic runs your local Claude Code as a subprocess over the [Agent Client Protocol](https://github.com/agentclientprotocol/agent-client-protocol), the same pattern Zed uses for its Claude Agent, so your own install handles authentication and every model call and bills you directly. cubic never proxies your credentials and never calls Anthropic's API. You pick opus, sonnet, or haiku per review depending on whether you want thorough or fast. ## Running More Than One Code Review Agent Nothing stops you from using two tools. For an example with Greptile and cubic, the two HTTP servers drop into a single project .mcp.json: Commit that and every developer authenticates separately. Claude Code asks each of them to approve the project-scoped servers on the first run. ## Pricing | | **Entry price** | **Metering** | **Free tier** | | Qodo | $30/mo, up to 30 users | Credits; ~2,500 for ~18 reviews | 14-day trial; free for qualifying open source | | CodeRabbit | $24/dev/mo annual, $30 monthly (Essentials) | Plan allowance, usage add-on for overage | Free reviews on public repositories | | Greptile | $30/active dev/mo | 50 credits included, then $1/credit | No | | cubic | Seat-based, 40k reviewed lines per Team seat | Reviewed lines, pooled; flex at $20/10k | 20 reviews/mo | CodeRabbit's higher tiers run $48 and $72 per developer per month on annual billing. Qodo and Cubic both route you to sales above 30 seats. ## Which Code Review Agent Should You Use For teams scaling agentic development while maintaining code quality, organizational standards and governance, Qodo is the most complete of the four. It is the only one here that covers all five stages (understand, apply standards, review independently, resolve, govern) rather than attaching a reviewer to the end. Get Rules acts before generation rather than after it, and Review Resolver's fixed/skipped/reported contract is the one I'd trust to run unattended. If you are building your own CI automation on top of review output, CodeRabbit's --agent JSONL is the strongest machine-readable surface here. codegenInstructions is designed for exactly that, though you are still supplying the standards and governance yourself. If you mostly review pull requests rather than working trees, and you want the deepest surface for reading review state back into a session, Greptile's nineteen MCP tools and its billing docs are the clearest of the four. Accept that it will not see uncommitted work. ## If you already pay for Claude Code and want reviews billed through your own models, cubic running over ACP is a real architectural choice rather than a pricing trick, and the free tier is enough to decide with. Weigh that against reviewing the agent's work with the same agent. title: "Best AI Code Review Tools for Claude Code: CodeRabbit vs Greptile vs cubic vs Qodo" published: false ## tags: ai, claude, devtools, codereview Building on the web these days is as easy as using the next-best AI code generator. AI Agents now write hundreds of lines across half a dozen files in a single session. However, the practices meant to catch problems (review, coding standards, governance) still assume a human typed every line and opened a pull request when they were done. I am building an app right now, and so far Claude Code has just written 400 lines across six files with nothing committed yet. I have vibe-coded apps before without going through this next step. After vibe-coding an app, before you commit, you pick a reviewer that sees that state. I tested Qodo, CodeRabbit, Greptile, and Cubic with that question in mind. ## What a quality layer for coding agents actually has to do | **Evaluation area** | **What should be assessed** | | Context | Can it understand the full codebase, repository relationships, history, and requirements? | | Standards | Can it bring organisational standards into the workflow *before* generating code? | | Review independence | Does it review the coding agent's work independently, rather than asking the agent to grade itself? | | Review quality | Does it find meaningful issues without creating excessive noise? | | Lifecycle coverage | Does it support planning, implementation, local review, PR review and resolution? | | Governance | Can teams enforce and manage standards consistently across repositories and agents? | | Traceability | Are findings, decisions and resolutions recorded and visible? | | Human oversight | Does it help people focus on risks and decisions rather than reviewing every generated line? | The other products in this article primarily help review generated code. Qodo is the product designed as the independent quality and governance layer around the agent generating it. Qodo is described as ["A CLI-powered Quality counterpart for coding agents"](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox), and its skills are organized by workflow stage. ## Claude Code gives a reviewer four doors - An [MCP server](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/mcp) exposes tools the model calls mid-session. Claude Code takes them over HTTP or stdio, and project-scoped servers live in a .mcp.json you commit. Anthropic's docs note that project servers need interactive approval before they connect, and that you can set a per-server timeout in milliseconds. - A plugin comes from a marketplace and can ship slash commands, skills, and its own MCP entry together. /plugin marketplace add owner/repo then /plugin install name is the whole install. - Agent skills are instruction files the agent loads when a task looks relevant. They need no protocol at all. - And then there's Bash. A CLI is a review tool too. The agent runs it, reads stdout, and acts. The four review tools connect to these doors differently. | | **MCP server** | **Claude Code plugin** | **Skills** | **CLI** | | Qodo | yes | marketplace plugin | five skills | qodo | | CodeRabbit | client, not server | /plugin install coderabbit | cr skills | coderabbit / cr | | Greptile | api.greptile.com/mcp | greptile@claude-plugin | /check-pr, /greploop | bundled with the plugin | | cubic | [www.cubic.dev/api/mcp](http://www.cubic.dev/api/mcp) | cubic@cubic | six skills | cubic | CodeRabbit points the protocol the other way. Rather than exposing itself as a server your agent calls, it acts as an MCP client and [consumes your servers as review context](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/integrations/mcp-servers), so requirements living in your issue tracker or docs system reach the reviewer. Useful, but it means Claude Code reaches CodeRabbit through the CLI or not at all. ## Which tool can review a dirty working tree? For [Greptile's CLI](https://www.greptile.com/docs/code-review/greptile-cli): Greptile compares the current branch with the repository's default branch. It reviews committed changes that have not been merged. It ignores uncommitted changes. For a human opening a PR, that's fine. For a Claude Code session that has been editing for twenty minutes and hasn't committed anything, it means the review is blind until you commit. The other three tools read the working tree directly. CodeRabbit reviews tracked changes by default, with --uncommitted for staged and unstaged edits and --include-untracked for anything Git hasn't seen yet. cubic's cubic review goes straight at uncommitted work and only compares against a base branch when you pass -b. Qodo's Review skill takes the local diff plus new untracked files, and [its docs](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-review-skill) are explicit that only the base commit needs to be pushed. Your edits can stay local and unpushed. ## Using Qodo For Code Reviews Qodo is the only tool of the four in this article that treats the whole understand-write-review-resolve-govern cycle as the unit of design rather than attaching a reviewer to the end of it. Qodo's [Agentic Toolbox](https://www.qodo.ai/features/qodo-agentic-toolbox/), [announced September 9th](https://www.qodo.ai/blog/introducing-qodos-agentic-toolbox/), shipped five skills, and they map onto stages rather than features: | **Skill** | **Stage** | **What it does** | | [Get Rules](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-get-rules-skill) (optional) | Write | Retrieves the rules that apply to the current task, before code is generated | | [Codebase Wisdom](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-wisdom-skill) | Understand | Dependencies, cross-repository relationships, impact, and recent changes | | [Review](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-codebase-review-skill) | Review | Runs Qodo Review on local changes, using the same engine as its PR reviews | | [Review Resolver](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-review-resolver-skill) | Resolve | Retrieves and resolves findings directly inside the agent workflow | | [Manage Standards](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/manage-standards-skill) | Govern | Create, update, retire, re-scope and triage Review Standards | **Get Rules** moves standards to the front. The other tools in this article will wait until the code exists, then tell your agent what it got wrong. But, Get Rules pulls organisation-wide standards, repository conventions, and whatever guidance applies to the task into context before generation starts. Otherwise you repeat that process twice, once to generate the wrong thing, once to correct it. **Manage Standards** is the governance piece. It is a skill your agent invokes. Admins can create, update, re-scope and bulk-triage the team's Review Standards conversationally from inside the session, rather than switching to the web portal. If you've ever put off tightening a rule because it meant a context switch, that conflict is the reason standards go stale. Non-admin contributions become pending suggestions for admin review, which is what keeps the governance intact. In **Review Resolver**, every finding gets an explicit outcome: fixed with an applied change, skipped with a reason, or reported without changes. It resolves only what your instruction scopes it to. That fixed/skipped/reported contract is what makes traceability possible rather than aspirational. You can read back what the agent did and what it declined to do. ### Understanding The Qodo Review Cycle Here is the cycle end to end, on a single change: adding webhook signature verification to a payments service. **Understand.** Before touching anything, the agent asks Codebase Wisdom what it is walking into. Which services consume this endpoint, what the existing handlers look like, whether anyone has solved this before in a sibling repository, what recent commits touched this path. This is context a forge reviewer never has, because a forge reviewer only sees the diff. **Apply standards.** Get Rules pulls the standards that apply to this task like your organisation's rules on secret handling and request validation, plus whatever this repository specifically requires. The agent now writes against those rules rather than discovering them in review. **Implement.** Claude Code writes the change. 400 lines across six files, nothing committed. **Review independently.** Before any pull request exists, the Review skill runs Qodo's review engine over the local diff plus untracked files. This way, the reviewer is not the agent that wrote the code, and the reviewer is not waiting for a PR to be opened. **Resolve.** Review Resolver pulls the findings back into the session with the fixed/skipped/reported contract. You see what was fixed, what was skipped and why, and what was flagged but deliberately left alone. **Govern.** The convention that came up during the work gets offered as a Review Standard, so the next agent in the next repository starts with it already loaded. Then you open the pull request, and Qodo Code Review continues in the PR workflow with the same engine. ### Getting set up Install it from the Claude Code, Codex, or Kiro marketplace, depending on your preferred choice. For any other setup, or to wire up several environments at once, there's the terminal path documented in the [CLI install guide](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/cli): This is POSIX sh. It requires Node 20 or later. Windows gets a PowerShell line: The installer configures the available Qodo skills for supported agent environments. You can install without a Qodo account, but you need to sign in to use the managed skills. Skills update themselves: the Toolbox checks periodically and refreshes Qodo-managed skills on your next qodo command, without overwriting skills you own or have customized. If you were running the deprecated @qodo/command, installing the Agentic Toolbox makes a best effort to remove it. And for anything MCP-compatible that isn't a supported plugin target, the Toolbox is exposed as an MCP server and drops into your .mcp.json like any other. The next thing is to add its instructions to CLAUDE.md. Qodo publishes a [default template](https://docs.qodo.ai/agentic-toolbox/agentic-toolbox-overview#default-template); these two lines changed how the loop behaved for me: ## CodeRabbit Review For machine-readable output CodeRabbit's [Claude Code integration](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/cli/claude-code-integration) is a plugin over a CLI: Then /plugin install coderabbit, and /coderabbit:review, optionally scoped with committed, uncommitted, --include-untracked, or --base main. What makes it good for agents is cr review --agent, which writes one JSON object per line to stdout. Finding events carry a severity from a fixed set (critical, major, minor, trivial, info, none), a fileName, and codegenInstructions, which is the agent-oriented fix instructions, with the human-readable comment as a fallback when it's empty. That is a deliberate piece of API design, and the severity ladder is stable enough to build a CI gate on. In CodeRabbit, reviews may take 7 to 30+ minutes depending on the scope of changes, which is a long stall inside an interactive session. If you drive it through an MCP server rather than the plugin, that per-server timeout field is where you raise the ceiling. **What it does not cover:** everything before the code exists. CodeRabbit consumes context from your MCP servers, which is genuinely useful, but there is no equivalent of retrieving your standards before generation, and no governance surface for managing those standards across repositories. ## Using Greptile For Code Reviews Greptile's [plugin documentation](https://www.greptile.com/docs/integrations/claude-code) puts it plainly: They are two ends of one pipeline. The CLI dispatches reviews; the MCP server reads them back. Installing it means a marketplace add and two separate sign-ins, one for each end: The MCP server authenticates separately through /mcp with the same account and two token stores. /greptile:review dispatches what Greptile calls a headless review, meaning no PR required, and the result is on your account where the MCP tools can read it back with source: "headless". On the MCP side you get nineteen tools spanning pull requests, reviews, comment search, custom context, knowledge bases, and analytics. The custom context group reads and writes: your agent can search existing team patterns and create new ones, which is the closest anything here comes to Get Rules, though it stays discretionary rather than applying at generation time, and it is pattern storage rather than enforceable, scoped organizational standards. **What it does not cover:** the working tree. Greptile ignores uncommitted changes. ## Using cubic For Code Reviews cubic's setup is the shortest here: Then /mcp to finish OAuth. Skills arrive either from npx @cubic-plugin/cubic-plugin install --skills-only, which detects installed agents and configures each one it finds, or from the marketplace at mrge-io/skills. The URL has to be [www.cubic.dev](http://www.cubic.dev) rather than cubic.dev, because some OAuth clients compare the protected resource origin exactly. With cubic auth connect claude-code, cubic runs your local Claude Code as a subprocess over the [Agent Client Protocol](https://github.com/agentclientprotocol/agent-client-protocol), the same pattern Zed uses for its Claude Agent, so your own install handles authentication and every model call and bills you directly. cubic never proxies your credentials and never calls Anthropic's API. You pick opus, sonnet, or haiku per review depending on whether you want thorough or fast. ## Running More Than One Code Review Agent Nothing stops you from using two tools. For an example with Greptile and cubic, the two HTTP servers drop into a single project .mcp.json: Commit that and every developer authenticates separately. Claude Code asks each of them to approve the project-scoped servers on the first run. ## Pricing | | **Entry price** | **Metering** | **Free tier** | | Qodo | $30/mo, up to 30 users | Credits; ~2,500 for ~18 reviews | 14-day trial; free for qualifying open source | | CodeRabbit | $24/dev/mo annual, $30 monthly (Essentials) | Plan allowance, usage add-on for overage | Free reviews on public repositories | | Greptile | $30/active dev/mo | 50 credits included, then $1/credit | No | | cubic | Seat-based, 40k reviewed lines per Team seat | Reviewed lines, pooled; flex at $20/10k | 20 reviews/mo | CodeRabbit's higher tiers run $48 and $72 per developer per month on annual billing. Qodo and Cubic both route you to sales above 30 seats. ## Which Code Review Agent Should You Use For teams scaling agentic development while maintaining code quality, organizational standards and governance, Qodo is the most complete of the four. It is the only one here that covers all five stages (understand, apply standards, review independently, resolve, govern) rather than attaching a reviewer to the end. Get Rules acts before generation rather than after it, and Review Resolver's fixed/skipped/reported contract is the one I'd trust to run unattended. If you are building your own CI automation on top of review output, CodeRabbit's --agent JSONL is the strongest machine-readable surface here. codegenInstructions is designed for exactly that, though you are still supplying the standards and governance yourself. If you mostly review pull requests rather than working trees, and you want the deepest surface for reading review state back into a session, Greptile's nineteen MCP tools and its billing docs are the clearest of the four. Accept that it will not see uncommitted work. If you already pay for Claude Code and want reviews billed through your own models, cubic running over ACP is a real architectural choice rather than a pricing trick, and the free tier is enough to decide with. Weigh that against reviewing the agent's work with the same agent.