About Git AutoReview

We are senior engineers who do code review every day, and we built Git AutoReview because the auto-publish behavior of existing AI review tools was creating a specific, recurring problem we could not work around.

The problem is not that AI code review is wrong — it is wrong a meaningful percentage of the time, but that is workable. The problem is that comments published without human approval carry the same weight in the UI as comments from a senior reviewer who actually read the code. Junior engineers cannot easily distinguish between a valid concern and a hallucinated one. Senior engineers start ignoring the thread. Within a quarter, the AI review is background noise that everyone dismisses, and you have paid for a tool that broke your review process.

Research found developers accept AI suggestions 96.8% of the time without verifying them. When auto-published comments carry reviewer authority in the PR interface, that acceptance rate becomes a liability — not a feature.

Git AutoReview puts a human in the loop before any comment goes live. The AI analyzes the diff. The reviewing engineer sees the suggestions privately, decides which ones are worth publishing, edits them if needed, and then approves. What the author sees is a considered comment, not a raw model output.

The model choice is yours — Claude, Gemini, and OpenAI are all supported. Platform coverage is GitHub (Cloud and Enterprise), GitLab (Cloud, Self-Managed, and Dedicated), and Bitbucket (Cloud, Server, and Data Center).

For most teams, the cost runs 50–94% less than CodeRabbit depending on team size: the Team plan is $14.99/month flat, not per user. We use Git AutoReview on this codebase every day. The tool is not a demo — it is our actual review workflow.