Greptile Signals

Who counts

Engineering leaders and teams

Very small team, Professional team, Technical leadership, Organization-wide

Individual builders

Individual practitioner

All practitioners

Everyone in the leaders and teams and individual builders groups

Choose a group to select whose experience counts. Within that group, each author counts once in the practitioner sentiment, with their latest view. GILD files each source in a group from how the account describes its author. A role or employer marked self-described is what the source states about themselves. Documentation checks facts for every group and never counts toward sentiment.

How the numbers work

• Overall signal. Positive votes minus negative ones, per 100 votes from the sources that take a side. Each author counts once, with their latest view, whoever they are and wherever they posted. The older weighted reading, where accounts GILD matched to a named person count three times when GILD lists the author among engineering leaders and twice otherwise, is shown beside it as a second view. Where an author wrote more than one source, the line beside the split gives the votes, one per author, so the score follows from it. When one author's sources from the same day disagree, that author counts as mixed, and a half point rounds away from zero. Sources with no opinion are listed and not counted. Strong positive is +50 or higher, positive +20 to +49, mixed −19 to +19, negative −20 to −49, strong negative −50 or lower.
• Weighted reading, second view. Counted the older way, where an account GILD matched to a named person counts two or three times, leaders and teams read +59 strong positive (method sentiment/S1). GILD printed that number as "GILD score" until October 29, 2026; most of those matches rest on a name or a self-described role.
• Method change, Oct 30, 2026. GILD changed how practitioner sentiment counts, to one vote per author. Weighted, it read +59 Strong positive; with one vote per author it reads +40 Positive. No evidence changed.
• Unscored. A group gets a score only with 20 sources from 15 authors. Below that, one source moves the score about 5 points, so the read says "Unscored until 20 sources from 15 authors" and shows its counts.
• Independence. A source whose author works for the vendor, for one of its partners or programs, or for a competitor, and a page the vendor published or ran, is listed with that tie and counts toward nothing. One author counts on at most two records per product. The line under the score says how many authors and how many separate discussions the counted sources come from: comments in one thread are one discussion.
• Praise and concerns. How many of the sources that discuss a theme praise it or raise it.
• Consensus. A statement joins when 20% of the group's sources support it and fewer contradict it. Contradicting sources are counted separately. Below that line a statement shows as building. At 40% or more it reads Strong agreement; below, Recurring point.
• Disagreements. The count on each side. GILD names no winner and gives no share of all users.
• Minimum evidence. A finding needs 5 sources from 3 authors; a disagreement also needs 2 on each side. Smaller counts stay in the table below, marked under the minimum.

Labels on a source

A source's date and whether it still applies are separate: a recent post can describe an old version, and an old one can still hold.

Documented

Stated in official documentation.

Reported

A practitioner's account of their own use.

Measured

Backed by the source's own measurements, such as a comparative test or tracked team metrics.

GILD analysis

GILD's check of a claim against official documentation.

Current

Describes the product as it is now.

Still applicable

Older, and the behavior or lesson still holds.

Needs a recheck

May depend on a plan, version or setting that changed since it was written. It keeps counting until GILD rechecks it, since the rest of the account usually holds, and its card says so.

Out of date

No longer accurate. Kept in the record; counts toward nothing current.

Flagged for a recheck, of the sources that take a side: leaders and teams 0 of 20, individual builders 0 of 26, all practitioners 0 of 46.

Limits

• GILD reviewed 48 public sources from people using Greptile. They comprise 22 Hacker News comments, 9 GitHub issues, 1 GitHub pull request, and 4 X posts. Another 6 are named reviews among the 10 newest G2 reviews on Greptile's AWS Marketplace listing. The list also includes 2 podcast episodes, 2 personal blog posts, and 2 company and newsletter posts. The counts do not establish prevalence among all Greptile users. GILD excluded 12 X posts from March and April 2026 collected from a compilation of complaints about March 2026 pricing. That collection selected only complaints. Undated Greptile customer stories do not count as Signals. A GitHub bug report counts as mixed unless its author drops Greptile or recommends against it. Of the included sources, 20 describe a team or its leaders.
• Few accounts identify a Greptile version or plan. Cost accounts after March 2026 describe the per-review pricing introduced that month, US$30 per developer with 50 reviews, then US$1 per review. By October 28, 2026, Greptile's pricing page listed Pro with no seat fees and credits at US$1 each.