Every source GILD analyzed, newest first. Each says who the source is, how it knows, whether it still applies and which findings it counts toward. Open a count to see only its sources.
Source
63 sources in Engineering leaders and teams, with product documentation Showing all 94 sources
Mixed
Request CodeRabbit reviews for ready PRs and future ready changesGitHub issue
Keeps CodeRabbit as a required review gate; several review requests came back as rate-limit refusals, and after retries its findings were fixed in follow-up pull requests before merge.
Positive
Enable coderabbit to help reviewing PRsGitHub issue
Asked the tm4e maintainer to enable CodeRabbit, which his other projects already use: its reviews are generally quite good and give contributors a first pass to fix before a maintainer looks.
Positive
REQUEST: New AI review tool integration for agent-sandbox (kubernetes/org issue 6296), 90-day evaluationGitHub issue comment, 90-day evaluation under the Kubernetes AI code review tools policy
Agent Sandbox's 90-day review found 92% of CodeRabbit's 1,117 threads resolved or fixed and only 6% pushed back, while 15% of bot-approved PRs still drew human change requests. All ten contributors asked want to keep it, and she recommends continuing while capping comment volume on large PRs and tuning AGENTS.md.
"Ten people gave an opinion; all ten want to keep it."
"Continue on agent-sandbox. First-pass defects, missing test updates and API-convention slips get caught before a human looks…"
Positive
Comment on: Workspace MCP v2 - Musings from the past 18 months building open source AI toolsHacker News comment
Maintainer of a popular open source MCP server runs automated CodeRabbit reviews in the repo alongside Claude Code and Codex reviews, while still reading every PR before merge.
Positive
The AI Revolution Fails without Psychological Safety for Developers: a Conversation with Erin DoylePodcast episode transcript, The InfoQ Podcast (The Architects Podcast)
Quotient's founding engineer says the team uses CodeRabbit on its pull requests after trying several other tools. When faster AI coding left PRs stuck in review, the team agreed to leave bugs and edge cases to tools like CodeRabbit and keep human review for the business domain and maintainability.
"We use CodeRabbit for our PRs. We've tried a number of different tools before landing on that one."
"What did we think AI tools, such as CodeRabbit are really good at spotting and what do we feel like our responsibilities should be as human reviewers and what should we leave up to the AI?"
Negative
Retire the third-party review vendor; the review gate is @claude-fleet reviewGitHub issue
Retired CodeRabbit for an in-house review bot, noting the old setup needed a maintainer permission gate because the vendor read its review policy from the pull request's own head branch.
Negative
CodeRabbit still auto-reviews every PR despite the switch to Cursor BugbotGitHub issue
After the repository replaced CodeRabbit with Cursor Bugbot, the org-wide app kept reviewing every pull request on default settings. It posted rate-limit notices of 2 reviews per hour until the maintainer uninstalled it.
Mixed
[ci] Opt in valid PRs to continuous CodeRabbit reviewsGitHub issue
Because CodeRabbit reviewed every PR, including ones later flagged invalid, the maintainer turned off automatic reviews and had OpenWISP's bot request reviews only on valid PRs.
Positive
Comment on: Ask HN: Does a human still review your code?Hacker News comment
Says a human reviews their code less and less. Their employer runs CodeRabbit, which catches real issues, and they add their own checks on top.
Positive
Enable CodeRabbit for the repoGitHub issue
Proposed CodeRabbit as an extra mechanical reviewer after several happy years of using it, and argued to keep Codex review too because the two find different things. The maintainer turned it on for all pull requests.
Mixed
Proposal: coordinated bot reviews and PR risk triageGitHub issue
Found CodeRabbit well configured for AzerothCore, but its reviews never become an approval, so maintainers still read every bot comment themselves. Another maintainer replied that the project is already overwhelmed by bot output.
Positive
REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)GitHub issue comment
After positive pilots on Kueue, JobSet, and Agent Sandbox, asked to enable CodeRabbit on kubernetes/kubernetes, and notes the tools need written coding conventions, an AGENTS.md, and configuration to review well.
Negative
REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)GitHub issue comment
Opposes enabling CodeRabbit on kubernetes/kubernetes without a contract, a comparison with other tools including Copilot, and summon-only reviews, since many people find automatic reviews unhelpful.
Counts toward
Negative
REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)GitHub issue comment
Says that on the pull requests they opened or followed, CodeRabbit's comments were only annoying and not helpful.
Negative
CodeRabbit AI Review: Is It Worth It for Your Team?Independent review, MartinZoeller.com
After weeks at a client, found reviews fast and some real frontend bugs caught. Noise, invented rules, wrong learnings and shallow context still made it not worth it next to a custom review skill.
Counts toward
Mixed
[Discussion] Feedback for AI pre-reviewer (Coderabbit / Copilot) (kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox issue 1231)GitHub issue comment
Finds CodeRabbit useful and mostly correct, but it drifts outside a pull request's scope, drops a finding as soon as a person disagrees, and can leave contributors talking only to a bot.
Positive
[Discussion] Feedback for AI pre-reviewer (Coderabbit / Copilot) (kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox issue 1231)GitHub issue comment
Prefers CodeRabbit's review experience to Copilot's: it edits its existing comments without reposting them, is configurable, and learns when corrected, though Copilot catches some issues CodeRabbit misses.
Positive
Feedback on CodeRabbit (kubernetes-sigs/kueue issue 13078)GitHub issue comment
In Kueue's pilot review, calls CodeRabbit excellent and wants to keep it, but it forgets lessons the maintainers teach it in comments, such as filing flake issues.
Negative
Switch from CodeRabbit to copilot reviewsGitHub issue
Set up CodeRabbit on Crossplane because it remembered feedback from earlier reviews; it works fine but is full of self-promotion and emojis, so he proposed GitHub Copilot review. Maintainers trialed Copilot on every pull request and then hit CodeRabbit rate limits.
Negative
Comment on: Claude Sonnet 5Hacker News comment
At their ~2000-developer company, some teams, including theirs, are begging to disable CodeRabbit and similar MR bots because walls of noise make reviewing a nightmare.
Negative
Comment on: Show HN: Ox, an AI agent that catches tech debt before it's committedHacker News comment
Their company ran CodeRabbit on Azure DevOps. It flagged many issues, most of them false positives, so the team stopped relying on it.
Positive
Open source maintainership in the age of AIProject contributor blog post, Kubernetes Contributors
The Kubernetes contributor blog reports the community rolled out CodeRabbit to a few projects in mid 2026 because it gives every contributor an automatic review, which Copilot's per-license access did not. Reviews needed tuning, feedback has been positive, and Agent Sandbox labels PRs that still have open AI comments before a maintainer reviews.
"In mid 2026, the Kubernetes community has rolled out CodeRabbit to a few projects. As with copilot, some tuning has been required to provide better reviews but the overall feedback has been positive."
"Agent-sandbox has added a label on PRs to reflect that there is still a need to resolve some of the comments from AI tools."
Negative
ci: replace CodeRabbit/Gemini with Greptile across the 6 IEP reposGitHub issue
Canceled CodeRabbit and Gemini review across six repositories and replaced them with Greptile, configured with 46 rules taken from the repositories' own invariants.
Negative
Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolHacker News comment
Their team tried CodeRabbit and Qodo and found both far worse than a thin in-house Claude/Codex wrapper, arguing most teams should not pay SaaS fees for AI review.
Positive
Comment on: Open Code Review, an AI-powered code review CLI toolHacker News comment
Their company started using CodeRabbit in 2026. The automated review catches a lot, and the new review interface helps a person review large AI-written pull requests faster.
Mixed
CodeRabbit: Recommended setGitHub issue
Asked Red Hat Product Security for a smaller must-have set of CodeRabbit checks. The product caps custom checks at 20, several duplicate what CodeRabbit or other scanners already do, and the AI-attribution check flags nearly every Claude pull request.
Mixed
Enable CodeRabbit auto-review on cuda-python (port CCCL's .coderabbit.yaml)GitHub issue
The cuda-python team had turned automatic review off because the default profile was noisy. It proposed turning it back on with the tuned config NVIDIA's CCCL team adopted to suppress walkthroughs, poems and finishing-touch suggestions.
Positive
Agentic code workflows with Nick TuneNewsletter interview, Tech World With Milan
PayFit's senior staff engineer has CodeRabbit on every pull request at work, configured to read the team's coding standards and ADRs and flag violations, and sometimes runs the CLI before opening a branch. He reviews every PR himself after CodeRabbit and local review agents.
"One thing that I use everywhere is CodeRabbit. It is quite amazing. I have it set up on all my pull requests, both personal projects and at work."
"The great thing about CodeRabbit is that not only can it identify bad and insecure code, but it can also be configured to read all your coding standards and ADRs and find violations."
"Sometimes I also run CodeRabbit via CLI before creating a branch."
Positive
Comment on: Ask HN: How are you reviewing code at work these days?Hacker News comment
Their team agrees on irreversible decisions such as schema changes first, then lets CodeRabbit or Claude review the code while people check that the behavior is correct.
Positive
Comment on: There is an AI code review bubbleHacker News comment
Installed CodeRabbit for their GitLab reviews; at roughly US$15 per user per month it regularly finds subtle problems, though it flags theoretical issues they just resolve.
Counts toward, pending a recheck
Positive
AI Code Review Tools BenchmarkIndependent benchmark, AIMultiple
AIMultiple replayed 309 pull requests through CodeRabbit, Greptile, GitHub Copilot and Cursor Bugbot on default settings. CodeRabbit had the top LLM-judge score on 51% of them and also led the scores from 10 developers who graded a subset.
"CodeRabbit ranked as the most successful code review tool across 51% of 309 PRs…"
Counts toward
Negative
Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus farHacker News comment
Their team's CodeRabbit reviews seem to ignore the repository's CLAUDE.md conventions, and they are looking for a better reviewer.
Negative
Comment on: When someone says they hate your productHacker News comment
Their team tried CodeRabbit, but it enabled beta features unasked, such as AI replies on GitHub issues, and they disabled it; some teammates felt forced to use it.
Mixed
Tech Debt: Codebase Quality Improvements - CodeRabbit Baseline ScanGitHub issue comment
Said CodeRabbit's baseline scan of Ulauncher listed mostly superficial issues the maintainers already knew about and had suppressed on purpose. They asked it for the logic bugs they had hoped it would find.
Positive
AI Code Review Before You Deploy: Our Experience with CodeRabbitEngineering blog post, DeployHQ blog
After more than a year as a customer, DeployHQ finds CodeRabbit's analysis sharper and more context-aware, though its security checks are sometimes overzealous, and pairs it with Claude Code and Codex.
Counts toward, pending a recheck
Positive
Comment on: Command LinesHacker News comment
Their workplace used CodeRabbit for code review, and they were impressed enough to recommend it, with no affiliation.
Positive
Best AI Code Review Tools 2026: Comparison & GuideCompany engineering blog post, Monterail blog
Monterail ran a hands-on evaluation of GitHub Copilot, Cursor BugBot and CodeRabbit on an internal project and picked CodeRabbit, mainly for its PR summaries and sequence diagrams. Out of the box it posted many comments, and Monterail budgets one to two weeks of .coderabbit.yaml tuning.
"At Monterail, we ran a formal hands-on evaluation of three leading tools: GitHub Copilot, Cursor BugBot, and CodeRabbit. CodeRabbit won."
Positive
Coderabbit github app for the Nix repoGitHub issue
Requested CodeRabbit for the Nix repository as an opt-in reviewer after it found bugs in other projects the requester maintains. It later caught use-after-free bugs before they merged, while others objected to its poems and comment volume.
Positive
Enable CodeRabbitGitHub issue
Asked FastMCP to enable CodeRabbit after using it on another project: it writes useful pull request summaries and analyzes code well outside the changed files. The maintainer turned it on two days later.
Mixed
Picking an AI Code ReviewerPersonal blog post, markmarkoh.com
A five-person team trialed CodeRabbit, Cubic, Cursor's BugBot and Claude Code Review side by side. CodeRabbit caught real bugs, but its nitpicks and refactor suggestions meant the team would ignore 75% or more of its comments, so they chose Cubic.
"While it caught real issues, it also has a lot of “Nitpicks” and “Refactor Suggestions”, so we’d ignore 75% or more of the comments it made."
Negative
Turn off Coderabbit?GitHub issue
Found CodeRabbit really annoying and not particularly valuable and proposed turning off automatic reviews; the other maintainers agreed to keep it installed for on-demand reviews only.
Positive
AI-assisted reviews, one month later...Project blog post, Lychee blog
Categorizing all 290 CodeRabbit findings on 28 PRs over a month, the maintainer rated 72% relevant and 28% noise or wrong assumptions, with real catches including Zip Slip and IDOR flaws.
Counts toward, pending a recheck
Positive
The 3-5x Factor: Measuring the Real Impact of AI on Engineering TeamsCompany engineering blog post, Tint Technical Blog
Tint's platform lead says AI coding raised pull request volume until review became the bottleneck, so the team brought back CodeRabbit, which had disappointed them a year earlier. Comments per PR rose 94% (1.61 to 3.12) after the July 3 rollout, which he counts as better review, and cycle times were trending back down.
"…this spike is primarily due to implementing CodeRabbit on July 3rd. CodeRabbit dramatically increased the number of comments, but for good reasons: it catches issues that human reviewers might miss…"
"This is precisely why we introduced CodeRabbit. The preliminary results are promising…"
Positive
Comment on: Ask HN: How much are you guys paying for AI coding tools monthly?Hacker News comment
Lists CodeRabbit at US$30 a month among four paid AI tools, under a team soft cap of US$500 per developer per month that most developers stay well below.
Negative
Comment on: How we exploited CodeRabbit: From simple PR to RCE and write access on 1M reposHacker News comment
Their team removed CodeRabbit because it was too verbose, produced too many false positives and never added anything useful.
Mixed
change coderabbit's config to be less annoyingGitHub issue
Called CodeRabbit generally useful but too verbose and repetitive for small PRs; maintainers agreed to keep the summary and turn off the poem, suggested labels and reviewers, and make diagrams optional.
Negative
Comment on: CodeRabbit AI PR reviewsGitHub issue comment
Enabled CodeRabbit on Fedimint in 2024 with only the poem turned off, then removed it in April 2025 because everyone on the project got annoyed by it.
Negative
Comment on: There is more to code review than (automatable) detectionHacker News comment
Agrees with a poor experience of AI PR review for CodeRabbit at work, finds local Codex better, and says AI misses code smells and architecture that humans catch.
Mixed
Collapse CodeRabbit output and turn off incremental re-reviewGitHub issue
Counted 103 top-level CodeRabbit comments across 82 open PRs and stale change requests blocking 10 ready PRs, then collapsed its walkthrough and stopped per-push re-review while keeping CodeRabbit.
Negative
Comment on: GPT-6 Astra in code review: Gains, privacy, and costHacker News comment
From experience as an engineer and former code auditor, says CodeRabbit's results are so poor they are not worth the noise and friction it adds to CI code review.
Mixed
chore: replace CodeRabbit with Cursor Bugbot as the automated reviewerGitHub pull request
Replaced CodeRabbit with Cursor Bugbot because the free tier's two concurrent reviews serialized merges, while calling its review quality genuinely good for catching an authorization bypass and a privacy bug.
Negative
chore(ci): remove CodeRabbit, SonarQube Cloud replaces the second machine opinionGitHub issue
Removed CodeRabbit after measuring about 60% true positives over 25 PRs, replacing it with deterministic SonarQube Cloud analysis as the advisory machine reviewer.
Negative
Comment on: Stop Anthropomorphizing Intermediate Tokens as Reasoning/Thinking Traces (2025)Hacker News comment
Had to reply to CodeRabbit several times explaining why an exception should crash the app so it would remember, and finds arguing with a gatekeeping bot degrading.
Mixed
Comment on: Composable TestsHacker News comment
Has mixed feelings: colleagues treat CodeRabbit comments as gospel and can harm code, and it stays superficial, fixing typos without commenting on the substance of changes.
Positive
Comment on: Ask HN: How do you go from writing code to deploying with agents?Hacker News comment
Runs the CodeRabbit CLI over Claude-written code, alongside a Claude code-review skill, before pushing to CI, as one of several checks that catch problems early.
Counts toward
Mixed
Proposal: rebalance the review topology, Codex primary, CodeRabbit deliberate, rate limits never blockingGitHub issue
Found the Pro plan's five reviews an hour too small for nine agent-driven repositories, so proposed Codex as the primary reviewer and CodeRabbit as a deliberate reviewer on settled changes.
Positive
Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolHacker News comment
Calls CodeRabbit a great deal at a flat US$30 per developer per month that finds a lot, and praises its new PR review UI for grouping files in big PRs.
Negative
Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolHacker News comment
Stopped using CodeRabbit partly because of the Kudelski Security RCE disclosure, and questions the value of PR-level AI review over local agent review.
Positive
Comment on: Appearing productive in the workplaceHacker News comment
Says CodeRabbit, configured correctly, catches more bugs than anyone on their main platform because it reviews first, with a very low false positive rate.
Mixed
I tested 9 code review tools to see which is best!Video, YouTube (Convex channel)
Scored nine AI review bots on ten seeded Convex bug scenarios; CodeRabbit caught the index misuse but lost points for false positives, ending in the silver tier behind Qodo and Copilot.
"…for, the final score for all the models. Here we go. So, at the top, we would have what I would class as gold tier. We have Codo, closely followed by Co-pilot. Then in silver tier, we have Cubic, Code Rabbit, and…"
Positive
Comment on: There is an AI code review bubbleHacker News comment
CodeRabbit worked well, catching bugs and using learnings to avoid repeat comments, so they even read low-confidence comments; their integration later broke with slow support.
Positive
Comment on: Don't fall into the anti-AI hypeHacker News comment
Calls CodeRabbit far better at reviewing than any AI model they have seen, finding subtle concurrency bugs and deep API misuse, while they still do architecture review themselves.
Counts toward
Negative
Comment on: The future of software development is software developersHacker News comment
CodeRabbit occasionally finds things but labels non-critical issues critical, flags nonexistent issues, is extremely verbose, and its haikus feel infantilizing; overall underwhelming.
Positive
Comment on: The future of software development is software developersHacker News comment
Finds CodeRabbit better than most human reviewers at finding vulnerabilities, configuration issues and bad practices, though weaker on whether a change makes sense, which they own anyway.
Counts toward
Positive
I just ran into another issue where CodeRabbit was the only AI PR review tool that caught the issueX post
Running six AI pull request reviewers, found CodeRabbit the only one that caught a particular issue. He adds that the other bots also catch things CodeRabbit misses, so teams should run several.
"I just ran into another issue where CodeRabbit was the only AI PR review tool that caught the issue."
Counts toward
Mixed
CodeRabbit CEO Drama: What Actually HappenedVideo, YouTube
Open source maintainer using CodeRabbit for over a year says it just works automatically and its agent fix prompts help, but now prefers Cubic and Macroscope.
"…of them. If I just take a look at an actual PR, I have security tools run it like socket security. I have a cell. I have code scanners from GitHub. Here you see the PR bot reviews, Code Rabbit, Cubic, Macroscope."
Mixed
Honest review of Greptile and CodeRabbit after a few weeksX post
After weeks running CodeRabbit beside Greptile, found CodeRabbit more thorough with many more nitpicks. Both often flag non-issues and miss critical problems, yet the critical bugs they do catch justify using them.
"Coderabbit is a bit more thorough, and finds many more nitpicks and small issues."
Not counted
Its author received free access from CodeRabbit. Kept in the record; it takes part in no figure.
Mixed
Comment on: AI helps ship faster but it produces 1.7× more bugsHacker News comment
Heavy CodeRabbit user reports many false positives, such as flagging missing validation that existed outside the diff, though telling it that it is wrong gets accepted.
Positive
Comment on: Your job is to deliver code you have proven to workHacker News comment
CodeRabbit sometimes gives good suggestions and sometimes is wrong or misses things, so humans still review, but with heavy LLM-generated code it feels like a step forward.
Positive
Comment on: Your job is to deliver code you have proven to workHacker News comment
On their team, fixing CodeRabbit's findings or giving a reason not to is step one of every pull request, and it catches a lot of subtle bugs.
Positive
Comment on: Who has enjoyed using PR code reviewers? What worked and what didn't?Hacker News comment
CodeRabbit at work has been positive overall, especially after turning off poems and sequence diagrams; useful enough to consider paying for it on solo side projects.
Positive
CodeRabbit CLI Review and Claude Code IntegrationPersonal blog post, oikon48.dev
Trying the new CodeRabbit CLI, called it a review tool for AI tools: git-based, rate-limited, run headless, and callable from Claude Code, Codex and Cursor before a PR exists.
Positive
Comment on: Code review can be betterHacker News comment
Uses CodeRabbit's free VS Code plugin to review local commits, catching nits and generating summaries, while the PR bot adds structure so humans focus on design.
Negative
Comment on: How we exploited CodeRabbit: From simple PR to RCE and write access on 1M reposHacker News comment
Canceled their paid CodeRabbit subscription after the Kudelski RCE disclosure, citing the company's lack of transparency until the report went viral on HN.
Mixed
How We Exploited CodeRabbit: From a Simple PR to RCE and Write Access on 1M RepositoriesSecurity research, Kudelski Security Research
From a free trial, researchers ran code on CodeRabbit's servers through a malicious Rubocop config and obtained keys giving read and write access to about a million repositories; CodeRabbit fixed it quickly.
Positive
AI for Code Review: CodeRabbitNewsletter, Narthur Online
Calls CodeRabbit the AI tool that most consistently improves their work and more reliable than Copilot's review, but per-organization seats are awkward for a contractor across client orgs.
Positive
CodeRabbit: The ULTIMATE Free VS Code Extension that Reviews Your Code Inside Your IDE 🔥Video, YouTube
Shows CodeRabbit's VS Code extension reviewing Copilot-made changes on a branch before any PR, catching a missing useEffect dependency and passing the fix back to Copilot.
"…file. So let's see the uh what it comes up with. So finally it has reviewed the changes and we have three refactor suggestions and one potential issue. Okay, let's check out the potential issue. So missing dependency in the use effect."
Positive
Comment on: The AI Code Review Disconnect: Why Your Tools Aren't Solving Your Real ProblemHacker News comment
Started using CodeRabbit skeptically on their open source project; on the first PR it found a bug CI tests missed, so they kept it, unlike Gemini Code Assist.
Counts toward
Pages from CodeRabbit, used to check facts for every group.
Documents reviews past the included limit at US$1 per credit and four files per credit. The monthly spending cap is Unlimited until an admin sets one.
Documents manual approval and auto-approval seat modes and 30-day seat reallocation. Provider-identified bots never get a paid seat, and ignore_usernames skips reviews without stopping seat assignment.
Lists Free, open source, Essentials, Team, Advanced, and Enterprise, with PR, IDE, and CLI reviews capped per developer per hour on rolling windows.
Explains what consumes a review: each push to an open pull request triggers an incremental review by default, and batching pushes spends fewer reviews.
Documents the quiet, chill, and assertive review profiles, path filters, path instructions, and the walkthrough, poem, and diagram settings.
Documents when automatic reviews run: drafts are skipped by default, and labels, title keywords, and pauses control the rest.
Explains review instructions scoped to file globs in .coderabbit.yaml.
States that the .coderabbit.yaml in the feature branch under review is the configuration used for that review.
Documents Learnings from review chat and an approval delay of up to 30 days before chat-sourced learnings apply.
Documents the knowledge base features and the opt-out that turns off features needing data retention.
Defines acceptance rate as accepted CodeRabbit comments divided by posted comments, by severity and category.
Describes reviews of uncommitted changes in VS Code-based editors and the CLI before a pull request is opened.
Documents coderabbit review for committed and uncommitted changes, structured output for agents, and integrations with coding agents.
States that code is shared with OpenAI and Anthropic for review, that CodeRabbit never uses customer code for training, and what it stores.
Limits self-hosting to Enterprise customers with 500 or more seats.
Documents automatic approval once CodeRabbit's comments are resolved, which is off by default.
Source index
Every source GILD read, with the original address and the context used to count it. Open a finding to filter the full cards above. On smaller screens the index lists each source once by name, cohort and date; its full record above carries the address, context and findings.
| Source | Original URL | Author and context | Who | Published | Review date | Applies | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Request CodeRabbit reviews for ready PRs and future ready changesID tb-12 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | JonghunYu, Allra Fintech engineerself-described: Allra Fintech texio repository, CodeRabbit as a required review gate | Professional team | Published Oct 21, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Enable coderabbit to help reviewing PRsID tb-11 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | angelozerr (Angelo Zerr), creator of Eclipse tm4eself-described: Eclipse tm4e and the Eclipse LemMinX and vscode-quarkus projects, on the free open source plan | Professional team | Published Oct 17, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| REQUEST: New AI review tool integration for agent-sandbox (kubernetes/org issue 6296), 90-day evaluationID ld-05 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Janet Kuo (janetkuo), SIG Apps chair and Agent Sandbox maintainer at KubernetesKubernetes Agent Sandbox subproject, 740 PRs from 100+ authors in 90 days, CodeRabbit as first-pass pre-reviewer | Technical leadership | Published Oct 15, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Workspace MCP v2 - Musings from the past 18 months building open source AI toolsID dc-47 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | mooseisloose, Maintainer of Google Workspace MCPself-described: Open source project Google Workspace MCP, a popular open source MCP server | Professional team | Published Oct 7, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: There is more to code review than (automatable) detectionID dc-46 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | quatotor, Hacker News commenterself-described: Used at work | Individual practitioner | Published Sep 28, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| The AI Revolution Fails without Psychological Safety for Developers: a Conversation with Erin DoyleID ld-03 | Talks & Videos | www.infoq.com/ | Erin Doyle, founding engineer at QuotientQuotient, a small engineering team building an engineering productivity product | Professional team | Published Sep 28, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Retire the third-party review vendor; the review gate is @claude-fleet reviewID dc-45 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Panagiotis Moustafellos (pmoust), ravel repository maintainerself-described: NOFireAI/ravel repository, PRs opened by an agent fleet | Professional team | Published Sep 10, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| CodeRabbit still auto-reviews every PR despite the switch to Cursor BugbotID tb-09 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | urisland, Island engineerself-described: island-io/mila repository, CodeRabbit installed on the island-io GitHub organization | Professional team | Published Sep 6, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Collapse CodeRabbit output and turn off incremental re-reviewID dc-43 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Justin Gordon (justin808), Maintainer of shakacode/agent-workflowsself-described: Repository with many open agent-authored PRs; CodeRabbit kept advisory | Individual practitioner | Published Sep 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: GPT-6 Astra in code review: Gains, privacy, and costID dc-44 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | eyalitki, Software engineer and former security researcher (manual code audit)self-described: Software engineer and former security researcher | Individual practitioner | Published Sep 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| chore: replace CodeRabbit with Cursor Bugbot as the automated reviewerID dc-41 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Uri Harduf (urisland), Developer, island-io/mila repositoryself-described: island-io/mila repository on CodeRabbit's free tier | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 31, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| [ci] Opt in valid PRs to continuous CodeRabbit reviewsID dc-42 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Federico Capoano (nemesifier), OpenWISP maintainerself-described: OpenWISP open source repositories | Professional team | Published Aug 31, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| chore(ci): remove CodeRabbit, SonarQube Cloud replaces the second machine opinionID dc-40 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Ruben Talstra (rubentalstra), FerroEHR repository ownerself-described: FerroEHR repository, CodeRabbit run as an advisory reviewer | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 24, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Stop Anthropomorphizing Intermediate Tokens as Reasoning/Thinking Traces (2025)ID dc-39 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | eloisius, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 21, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Composable TestsID dc-38 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | crabbone, Hacker News commenterself-described: Used at work | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 18, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Ask HN: Does a human still review your code?ID dc-37 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | ryanchants, Hacker News commenterself-described: Employer team that runs CodeRabbit on pull requests | Professional team | Published Aug 14, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Enable CodeRabbit for the repoID tb-07 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Komzpa (Darafei Praliaskouski), codex-lb contributorself-described: codex-lb open source project, CodeRabbit on the free open source plan beside Codex review | Professional team | Published Aug 14, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Ask HN: How do you go from writing code to deploying with agents?ID dc-36 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | mackatsol, Hacker News commenterself-described: Own projects built with Claude Code and test-driven development | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 9, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Proposal: coordinated bot reviews and PR risk triageID tb-15 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Yehonal, AzerothCore maintainerself-described: AzerothCore open source project with 133 open pull requests, reviewed by CodeRabbit and Copilot | Professional team | Published Aug 7, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)ID dc-34 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Kevin Hannon (kannon92), Maintainer of Kueue and JobSet who led the Kubernetes CodeRabbit pilotsself-described: Kubernetes pilots on Kueue, JobSet, and Agent Sandbox; request to enable CodeRabbit on kubernetes/kubernetes | Technical leadership | Published Aug 6, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)ID dc-35 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Kat Cosgrove (katcosgrove), Kubernetes contributor writing from the SIG Release perspectiveself-described: Kubernetes project, discussing CodeRabbit for kubernetes/kubernetes | Technical leadership | Published Aug 6, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| REQUEST: Enable CodeRabbit integration for kubernetes (kubernetes/org issue 6517)ID dc-33 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Jordan Liggitt (liggitt), Kubernetes maintainerself-described: Kubernetes project, discussing CodeRabbit for kubernetes/kubernetes | Professional team | Published Aug 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Proposal: rebalance the review topology, Codex primary, CodeRabbit deliberate, rate limits never blockingID dc-32 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Nathan Payne (nathanjohnpayne), Repository ownerself-described: Nine public repositories with agent-driven auto-merge under one author identity | Individual practitioner | Published Jul 30, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| CodeRabbit AI Review: Is It Worth It for Your Team?ID ir-06 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | www.martinzoeller.com/ | Martin Zoeller, Independent consultant who runs workshops on introducing AI into development teamsself-described: Client engineering team, several weeks across dozens of pull requests | Professional team | Published Jul 30, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | Overall signalReal Bug Catches: PositiveConfigurable Review Rules: Mixed or negativeContext Beyond the Diff: Mixed or negativeReview Speed: PositiveValue for Money: Mixed or negativeComment Noise: Raised as a concernWrong or Overstated Findings: Raised as a concernRate Limits & Seat Cost: Discussed without concernReview before the pull requestDo CodeRabbit's useful findings justify the comments a team has to read to get them?: Too noisy to keep |
| [Discussion] Feedback for AI pre-reviewer (Coderabbit / Copilot) (kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox issue 1231)ID dc-31 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | esposem, Agent Sandbox contributorself-described: Kubernetes Agent Sandbox and other repositories that run CodeRabbit | Professional team | Published Jul 21, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| [Discussion] Feedback for AI pre-reviewer (Coderabbit / Copilot) (kubernetes-sigs/agent-sandbox issue 1231)ID dc-30 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Janet Kuo (janetkuo), Agent Sandbox maintainerself-described: Kubernetes Agent Sandbox project, running CodeRabbit and Copilot as pre-reviewers | Professional team | Published Jul 20, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Feedback on CodeRabbit (kubernetes-sigs/kueue issue 13078)ID dc-29 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Michał Woźniak (mimowo), Kueue maintainerself-described: Kubernetes Kueue project, a CodeRabbit pilot in kubernetes-sigs | Professional team | Published Jul 15, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Switch from CodeRabbit to copilot reviewsID tb-14 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | negz (Nic Cope), Crossplane maintainerself-described: Crossplane, a CNCF project; CodeRabbit chosen for remembering feedback from earlier reviews | Professional team | Published Jul 13, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Claude Sonnet 5ID dc-27 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | sensanaty, Engineer at a large public companyself-described: Mature public company, ~2000 developers, large monorepo, broad AI tooling budget | Organization-wide | Published Jul 1, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Show HN: Ox, an AI agent that catches tech debt before it's committedID dc-28 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | anee769, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company running CodeRabbit on Azure DevOps | Professional team | Published Jul 1, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Open source maintainership in the age of AIID ld-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | www.kubernetes.dev/ | Kevin Hannon (kannon92), Kueue and JobSet maintainer at KubernetesKubernetes contributor community; CodeRabbit on a few Kubernetes projects after a Copilot review trial | Professional team | Published Jun 26, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| ci: replace CodeRabbit/Gemini with Greptile across the 6 IEP reposID tb-16 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | jeremylongshore (Jeremy Longshore), Intent Solutionsself-described: Six Intent Eval Platform repositories | Professional team | Published Jun 24, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | Listed, no finding position |
| Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolID dc-23 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | atestu, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team started using CodeRabbit this year | Individual practitioner | Published Jun 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolID dc-24 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | lukeasrodgers, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team | Very small team | Published Jun 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Open Code Review - An AI-powered code review CLI toolID dc-25 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | eranation, Hacker News commenterself-described: Co-founder and CTO of Arnica | Individual practitioner | Published Jun 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Open Code Review, an AI-powered code review CLI toolID dc-26 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | atestu, Hacker News commenterself-described: Company that adopted CodeRabbit in 2026 while trying to limit large AI-written pull requests | Professional team | Published Jun 5, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| CodeRabbit: Recommended setID tb-05 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | stbenjam, Red Hat engineerself-described: Red Hat Product Security's shared CodeRabbit configuration for other teams | Professional team | Published May 26, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Enable CodeRabbit auto-review on cuda-python (port CCCL's .coderabbit.yaml)ID tb-04 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | rparolin, NVIDIA cuda-python maintainerself-described: NVIDIA cuda-python repository, CodeRabbit installed in opt-in mode | Professional team | Published May 25, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Appearing productive in the workplaceID dc-22 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | jeremyjh, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published May 7, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Agentic code workflows with Nick TuneID ld-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | newsletter.techworld-with-milan.com/ | Nick Tune, Senior Staff Software Engineer at PayFitPayFit, European payroll and HR company; Claude Code workflow with CodeRabbit on every pull request | Professional team | Published Mar 26, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Ask HN: How are you reviewing code at work these days?ID dc-21 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | azihsoyn, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team at work that agrees on irreversible decisions before AI review | Professional team | Published Mar 10, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| I tested 9 code review tools to see which is best!ID tc-03 | Talks & Videos | www.youtube.com/ | mikecann, Developer presenting on the Convex YouTube channelself-described: React, Vite and Convex test project with ten seeded PR scenarios, bots left on default settings | Individual practitioner | Published Mar 10, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: There is an AI code review bubbleID dc-20 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | sebra, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team that later trialed Greptile | Individual practitioner | Published Jan 27, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: There is an AI code review bubbleID dc-19 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | The_Fox, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team using GitLab | Very small team | Published Jan 26, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Needs a recheck | |
| AI Code Review Tools BenchmarkID sx-05 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | aimultiple.com/ | Cem Dilmegani, Principal Analyst at AIMultipleself-described: AIMultiple's RevEval: 309 pull requests replayed on benchmark repositories for CodeRabbit, Greptile, GitHub Copilot and Cursor Bugbot, with 10 developers grading a subset | Professional team | Published Jan 14, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Don't fall into the anti-AI hypeID dc-18 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | jmalicki, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Jan 12, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus farID dc-17 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | andrekandre, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team using CodeRabbit with a CLAUDE.md file in the repository | Professional team | Published Jan 8, 2026 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: The future of software development is software developersID dc-16 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | andrekandre, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 30, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: When someone says they hate your productID dc-14 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | eptcyka, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team | Very small team | Published Dec 29, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: The future of software development is software developersID dc-15 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | mywittyname, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 29, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| I just ran into another issue where CodeRabbit was the only AI PR review tool that caught the issueID sx-03 | Developer Communities | x.com/ | Elie Steinbock, founder of Inbox Zeroself-described: Inbox Zero, an open source AI email assistant, reviewed by CodeRabbit, Baz, Cubic, Macroscope and other bots | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 29, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| CodeRabbit CEO Drama: What Actually HappenedID tc-02 | Talks & Videos | www.youtube.com/ | Elie Steinbock, Creator of the open source Inbox Zero projectself-described: Open source project Inbox Zero, several AI review bots running on its PRs | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 26, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Honest review of Greptile and CodeRabbit after a few weeksID sx-04 | Developer Communities | x.com/ | Michael (michael_chomsky), member of technical staff at context.devself-described: Greptile and CodeRabbit run together for several weeks on a Bun, oRPC and better-auth stack, with free access from both vendors | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 22, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | Not counted. Its author received free access from CodeRabbit. |
| Tech Debt: Codebase Quality Improvements - CodeRabbit Baseline ScanID tb-01 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | friday, Ulauncher maintainerself-described: Ulauncher open source project, baseline scan of the whole codebase | Professional team | Published Dec 19, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: AI helps ship faster but it produces 1.7× more bugsID dc-12 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | kkarpkkarp, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 18, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: Your job is to deliver code you have proven to workID dc-13 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | fragmede, Hacker News commenterself-described: Employer-chosen review tool | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 18, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: Your job is to deliver code you have proven to workID tb-02 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | mywittyname, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team that runs CodeRabbit on every pull request | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 18, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Comment on: Who has enjoyed using PR code reviewers? What worked and what didn't?ID dc-11 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | ryanchants, Hacker News commenterself-described: Used at work; considering it for solo side projects | Individual practitioner | Published Dec 17, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| AI Code Review Before You Deploy: Our Experience with CodeRabbitID ir-05 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | www.deployhq.com/ | Facundo F, CTO at DeployHQself-described: DeployHQ, a CodeRabbit customer for over a year | Technical leadership | Published Dec 3, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Needs a recheck | |
| Comment on: Command LinesID dc-10 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | bebop, Hacker News commenterself-described: Employer that used CodeRabbit for code review | Professional team | Published Nov 22, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Best AI Code Review Tools 2026: Comparison & GuideID sx-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | www.monterail.com/ | Maciej Korolik, Senior Frontend Developer and AI Expert at MonterailMonterail, a software development company; GitHub Copilot, Cursor BugBot and CodeRabbit tested on one active internal project | Professional team | Published Oct 30, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Coderabbit github app for the Nix repoID dc-09 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Jörg Thalheim (Mic92), Nix team memberself-described: NixOS Nix repository, opt-in reviews per pull request | Professional team | Published Oct 27, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Enable CodeRabbitID tb-13 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | strawgate, FastMCP contributorself-described: PrefectHQ FastMCP open source project, after using CodeRabbit on py-key-value | Professional team | Published Oct 25, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Current | |
| Picking an AI Code ReviewerID sx-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | markmarkoh.com/ | Mark Di Marco, startup hacker from Austinself-described: Five-person startup engineering team trialing four AI reviewers with minimal customization | Very small team | Published Oct 10, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| CodeRabbit CLI Review and Claude Code IntegrationID ir-04 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | oikon48.dev/ | Oikon (oikon48), Developer and author of a Claude Code guideself-described: Solo, local repositories with Claude Code | Individual practitioner | Published Sep 20, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Turn off Coderabbit?ID dc-08 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Orion Cohen (orionarcher), TorchSim maintainerself-described: TorchSim open source project, small maintainer group | Very small team | Published Sep 16, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| AI-assisted reviews, one month later...ID ir-03 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | lycheeorg.dev/ | Benoît Viguier (ildyria), Lychee maintainerself-described: LycheeOrg open source projects on CodeRabbit's open source plan | Very small team | Published Sep 13, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Needs a recheck | Overall signalReal Bug Catches: PositivePR Summaries & Walkthroughs: PositiveComment Noise: Discussed without concernWrong or Overstated Findings: Discussed without concernRate Limits & Seat Cost: Discussed without concernA first pass, with humans owning the mergeDo CodeRabbit's useful findings justify the comments a team has to read to get them?: Worth the noise |
| The 3-5x Factor: Measuring the Real Impact of AI on Engineering TeamsID ld-04 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | tech.tint.ai/ | Jonathan Petitcolas, Engineering Platform Lead at TintTint, an embedded insurance platform; the platform team measures engineering metrics before adopting tools | Technical leadership | Published Sep 8, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: Ask HN: How much are you guys paying for AI coding tools monthly?ID dc-07 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | TheAnkurTyagi, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team with a US$500 monthly AI tooling cap per developer | Professional team | Published Sep 1, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: Code review can be betterID dc-06 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | codeman001, Hacker News commenter, self-described | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 21, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: How we exploited CodeRabbit: From simple PR to RCE and write access on 1M reposID dc-04 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | tnolet, Hacker News commenterself-described: Team (reply to a comment praising CodeRabbit) | Very small team | Published Aug 19, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: How we exploited CodeRabbit: From simple PR to RCE and write access on 1M reposID dc-05 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | vadepaysa, Hacker News commenterself-described: Paying individual subscriber | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 19, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| How We Exploited CodeRabbit: From a Simple PR to RCE and Write Access on 1M RepositoriesID ir-01 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | kudelskisecurity.com/ | Nils Amiet, Senior Security Researcher at Kudelski Securityself-described: Security research on a free trial account | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 19, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| AI for Code Review: CodeRabbitID ir-02 | Engineering Blogs & Reviews | narthur.substack.com/ | Nathan Arthur, Independent contractorself-described: Contract work across several client GitHub organizations | Individual practitioner | Published Aug 19, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| CodeRabbit: The ULTIMATE Free VS Code Extension that Reviews Your Code Inside Your IDE 🔥ID tc-01 | Talks & Videos | www.youtube.com/ | SouryaTalks (Debsourya Datta), creator of the SouryaTalks developer tools YouTube channelself-described: Solo, Next.js todo app | Individual practitioner | Published May 28, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| change coderabbit's config to be less annoyingID dc-03 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | Ahmed Atwa (nightknighto), AsyncAPI Generator contributorself-described: AsyncAPI Generator open source project, small frequent PRs | Professional team | Published Apr 24, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: CodeRabbit AI PR reviewsID dc-02 | Developer Communities | github.com/ | elsirion, Fedimint maintainer who enabled CodeRabbitself-described: Fedimint open source project | Professional team | Published Apr 20, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Comment on: The AI Code Review Disconnect: Why Your Tools Aren't Solving Your Real ProblemID dc-01 | Developer Communities | news.ycombinator.com/ | lukaslalinsky, Sole developer of a non-trivial open source projectself-described: Solo, open source project | Individual practitioner | Published Mar 1, 2025 | Assessment reviewed Oct 25, 2026 | Still applicable | |
| Usage-based reviewsID pd-03 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 28, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Seat assignmentID pd-04 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 28, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Plans and pricingID pd-01 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Review rate limitsID pd-02 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Configuration referenceID pd-05 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Automatic review controlsID pd-06 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Path-based review instructionsID pd-07 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| YAML configurationID pd-08 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| LearningsID pd-09 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Knowledge BaseID pd-10 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Git platform review metricsID pd-11 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Code reviews in IDE and CLIID pd-12 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| CLIID pd-13 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| FAQID pd-14 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Self-hosted CodeRabbitID pd-15 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
| Request changes workflowID pd-16 | Product Documentation | docs.coderabbit.ai/ | CodeRabbitOfficial | Not counted (documentation) | No date stated | Documentation checked Oct 12, 2026 | Current | Verification only |
