[ahmadyan]

Problem with Code Review is it is quite straightforward to just prompt it, and the frontier models, whether Opus or GPT5.2Codex do a great job at code-reviews. I don't need second subscription or API call when the first one i already have and focus on integration works well out of the box.

In our case, agentastic.dev, we just baked the code-review right into our IDE. It just packages the diff for the agent, with some prompt, and sends it out to different agent choice (whether claude, codex) in parallel. The reason our users like it so much is because they don't need to pay extra for code-review anymore. Hard to beat free add-on, and cherry on top is you don't need to read a freaking poems.

[zurfer]

we use codex review. it's working really well for us. but i don't agree that it's straightforward. moving the number of bugs catched and signal to noise ratio a few percentage points is a compounding advantage.

it's a valuable problem to solve, amplified by the fact that ai coding produces much more code.

that being said, i think it's damn hard to compete with openai or anthropic directly on a core product offering in the long run. they know that it's an important problem and will invest accordingly.