AI code review tools compared — and the gap none of them cover
The AI code review market is genuinely good now. It is also aimed almost entirely at one moment — the pull request — which is not where agent mistakes are cheapest to catch.
If an AI wrote the code, something should read it before you do. That market has matured quickly, and the current options are good. Here is an honest survey, followed by the thing they all share.
The main options
CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit is the common default: one-click setup, broad adoption, and a reputation for low noise. It flags fewer issues than some competitors and wastes less of your time doing it, which is usually the right trade for a tool that comments on every pull request.
Greptile
Greptile indexes the whole repository rather than only the diff, which is what lets it catch bugs that span files. That makes it the natural step up for larger codebases. It is GitHub-centric, so teams on Azure DevOps or Bitbucket should check support before planning around it.
Qodo
Qodo pairs review with generated tests. If your gap is not only "nobody reviewed this" but "nothing covers this", getting both from one tool is a reasonable consolidation.
GitHub Copilot code review
Copilot's review is already included if you are on GitHub Enterprise, and zero setup beats a better tool you never install. Its known limit is context: it reviews the pull request diff without whole-codebase awareness, so bugs that only appear across files tend to slip through.
What they have in common
Every tool above reviews a pull request, against general good practice, after the work is finished. That is a genuinely useful moment, and for human-written code it may be the right one.
For agent-written code it is late, and it is aimed at the wrong target. Two gaps follow from that.
Gap one: your rules, not general good practice
A review bot knows what good code looks like in general. It does not know that your team decided all API handlers live in one directory, that a particular module is off limits, or that you deliberately do the unusual thing in one place because of a constraint that is not visible in the diff.
Those conventions are written down — in CLAUDE.md, .cursorrules, AGENTS.md, a contributing guide. The agent was given them and partially followed them. A general-purpose reviewer never sees them at all.
Gap two: the pull request is late
By the time a diff reaches a pull request it has usually been squashed, rebased, and mixed with other work. Catching "this touched a file it shouldn't have" is much cheaper immediately after the run, while the alternative is one command rather than an untangling job.
Two moments, two tools
| PR review tools | Super Terminal | |
|---|---|---|
| When it runs | On the pull request | Right after the agent finishes |
| Judged against | General good practice | Your repository's own rules |
| Whole-codebase context | Varies — Greptile yes, Copilot no | The files the run touched |
| Who reviews | The vendor's model | A different vendor's model |
| If it finds something | A comment to action later | Restore in one command |
| Reviews human-written code | Yes | No — agent runs only |
That last row matters. Super Terminal reviews what an agent just did; it does not review your colleague's pull request. If you want both moments covered, you want both kinds of tool, and they do not overlap.
Why a different vendor reviews
When Super Terminal checks a change, the reviewer is deliberately a different vendor's model from the one that wrote it. Not because it is smarter — because a checker sharing the author's blind spots and the author's reading of your instructions is not much of a check. Ask a model to re-read an instruction it just misread and it tends to misread it the same way.
The reviewer runs read-only, and is verified read-only afterwards. A reviewer that can edit is not a reviewer.
super-t review codex --alwaysnpm install -g super-tRequires Node.js 20 or later.