Research report · data-report
Reviews code: a census of 145 listings
26 of 145 listings answer yes for “Reviews code”. Counted from our own datasheet, with the query that reproduces every figure.
On this page
Reviews code, across 145 settled listings
Of the 145 Published listings whose datasheet settles “Reviews code”, the largest group is “Does not apply” at 76 (52%). Measured 2026-10-05.
Explore the matching agents
Reviews code · Datasheet criterion reviews_code · Report counted .
Current listings as of ; this set may differ from the report's original sample. Includes “Yes” and “Qualified” answers only. Read the conditions on qualified answers before treating them as a match. “No”, “Not applicable” and “Not established” answers are excluded.
View 52 current matching records
- AgentBridge Qualified
The bridge does not review anything itself, but its headline workflow routes one agent's diff to the other for review mid-turn, so review happens between the two connected CLIs rather than in the product.
Source retrieved 2026-10-05
- Agentix Labs Qualified
It reviews an existing deployment's configuration, secrets and connector boundaries; nothing on the site offers pull-request or diff review.
Source retrieved 2026-09-09
- AgentsKit Yes
A codeReviewer persona ships with the skills package and reviews diffs for bugs, security and style in pull-request comment format; you host the review loop yourself.
Source retrieved 2026-10-04
- Agno Yes
Code review over a diff is one of the documented coding-agent patterns.
- Aider Qualified
Review works by piping a diff into the chat yourself with /run git diff or --read and then asking in ask mode; there is no pull-request integration that reviews someone else's diff automatically.
Source retrieved 2026-09-30
- Antigravity CLI Qualified
The diff viewer opens workspace changes, agent turns and any commit in the repository for line-level comments, but review is a human reading diffs to steer the agent; no pull-request or reviewer workflow is documented.
Source retrieved 2026-09-10
- Augment Code Yes
Deep Reviewer, Pair Reviewer and Risk Analyzer experts review pull requests and post inline findings.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- AutoGen Qualified
The reflection design pattern pairs a coder agent with a reviewer agent that critiques the generated code; no surface reviews a diff or pull request someone else wrote.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Bolt Qualified
It audits an entire project for security defects and fixes most of them, but it does not review a diff or a pull request another person wrote.
Source retrieved 2026-09-11
- Claude Agent SDK Yes
The CLI surface is documented as a reviewer over a diff piped in from git or gh.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Claude Code Yes
The /code-review command reviews a local diff on any plan; the managed GitHub PR reviewer is a research preview on Team and Enterprise.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Cline Yes
It reviews diffs someone else wrote, either interactively on files and pull requests or unattended in GitHub Actions posting a review comment.
Source retrieved 2026-09-12
- CodeRabbit Yes
Reviewing diffs written by other people or agents is the core product: every pull request is reviewed automatically on open, with manual commands for older PRs.
Source retrieved 2026-09-15
- Codex CLI Yes
/review runs a dedicated reviewer over a diff, commit or branch without editing the tree.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Cursor Yes
Two review paths: Bugbot reviews pull requests in the repo host, and Agent Review reviews local changes before commit.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Devin Yes
Devin Review reviews pull requests anyone authored, reorganising and explaining large diffs in the Devin webapp.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Devin Desktop Yes
Quick Review puts a second agent over the diff; the SWE-check model is free on every tier, GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.7 bill per token, and Enterprise admins must enable it. Devin Local agent only.
Source retrieved 2026-09-03
- Dust Yes
GitHub tools let agents review pull requests against internal coding rules, and the engineering page presents automated code review as a supported use case.
Source retrieved 2026-10-01
- Factory Yes
/review reviews branches, commits or uncommitted diffs locally; a CI workflow reviews pull requests.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Gemini Code Assist Yes
A separate GitHub app reviews and summarises pull requests and answers follow-up questions via /gemini comments; files under .github/workflows are excluded.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Genspark Qualified
Reviewing pull requests appears only as one capability of Claw's GitHub session once you connect the account; there is no dedicated diff-review surface, inline comment flow or review report documented.
Source retrieved 2026-09-15
- GitHub Copilot Qualified
Reviews pull requests on GitHub and file diffs in editors, with suggested fixes; the comparison table marks both rows Not included on Free.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Glean Yes
The pull request review agent fetches a PR diff, checks it against style guides and posts comments back to GitHub.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Google Agent Development Kit (ADK) Qualified
Review is not a built-in behaviour: you assemble an agent with the documented GitHub MCP toolset and your own access token, and the vendor frames reviewing changes as something the AI can help with.
Source retrieved 2026-09-15
- goose Yes
A first-class goose review command reviews the working tree or a branch range, discovers repo-defined checks under .agents/checks, and runs them as parallel subagents with a severity filter.
Source retrieved 2026-09-16
- Gumloop Qualified
Through the GitHub connector an agent can open a pull request's changed files and inline review comments and post its own comment, but there is no dedicated review product or verdict workflow.
Source retrieved 2026-09-09
- HOL Guard Qualified
It does not review a human's diff, but the companion plugin-scanner inspects plugin and skill code in CI for maintainers.
Source retrieved 2026-09-29
- Juggler Qualified
A Git review surface lets you read each changed file's diff and comment on individual lines before handing the lot to the model, so review is human-led inside the workbench; no pull-request or CI review integration is documented.
Source retrieved 2026-09-17
- Junie Yes
A separate read-only review agent reviews diffs someone else wrote, comparing a branch against main or a named revision, and it also runs unattended on GitHub pull requests.
Source retrieved 2026-09-18
- Kilo Code Yes
Kilo Code Reviewer analyses pull requests and comments in the PR.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Letta Yes
Reviews diffs on demand or on every PR via the GitHub action's prompt input.
Source retrieved 2026-09-02
- Lindy Qualified
Code review appears only as a listed engineering use case for the Slack teammate; Lindy documents no diff or pull-request review surface, review policy, or per-PR workflow anywhere in its docs.
Source retrieved 2026-09-19
- Moveworks Qualified
It reviews agent builds it helped assemble, not a diff written by another engineer.
- Muse Code Qualified
Review happens inside its own runs — background reviewer and verification agents check the work — rather than as a review of a diff someone else wrote in a pull request.
Source retrieved 2026-09-20
- OpenAI Agents SDK (Python) Qualified
The docs present reviewing as one of the workloads a sandbox agent can be pointed at, but no review-specific tooling, diff ingestion or pull-request integration is documented by the vendor.
Source retrieved 2026-09-20
- OpenClaw Qualified
No built-in review product; the vendor's showcase describes a community-built loop in which OpenClaw reads a PR diff and answers with suggestions and a merge verdict.
- OpenCode Yes
A GitHub workflow can trigger it on every pull request for automated review, and line comments pass it the diff context.
Source retrieved 2026-09-21
- OpenHands Yes
A dedicated PR review workflow reads someone else's diff and posts inline comments on the pull request within minutes.
Source retrieved 2026-09-21
- Perplexity Qualified
Review happens through the managed GitHub connector, which the same note marks as preview; there is no dedicated diff-review product.
- Pydantic AI Qualified
Review is not native: the Harness capability table offers a Macroscope capability that runs that third-party code-review tool locally and hands its findings to the agent, so reviewing a diff depends on an external tool.
Source retrieved 2026-09-21
- Replit Agent Qualified
Documented review is Agent checking its own output as it builds; no documented flow for reviewing a diff or pull request a person wrote.
Source retrieved 2026-09-22
- Salesforce Agentforce Qualified
Static analysis with auto-fix runs over code in your own workspace and Git diffs can be attached as context, but no diff or pull-request review feature is documented and the docs state the trust layers do not replace code review.
Source retrieved 2026-09-03
- Sim Yes
Review Code mode checks out an existing PR read-only and submits a GitHub review with inline comments.
- SkaleAgents Yes
Reviewing someone else's source or configuration is the core job: an MCP tool reviews individual snippets, and the DevSecOps bot explicitly accepts a pull request diff as input.
Source retrieved 2026-10-03
- Tale Qualified
A separate agent can be granted a review tool to judge another agent's completed result and its evidence, but the vendor scopes this to task deliverables and says Tale does not verify GitHub state itself.
Source retrieved 2026-10-03
- TecAdRise Qualified
They will take over and harden automations somebody else built, which is a workflow audit rather than a code review; nothing on the site describes reviewing a diff or a pull request.
Source retrieved 2026-09-12
- Vecbase Yes
Reviews a PR link or diff and returns findings with file and line references, severity and suggested patches.
Source retrieved 2026-09-03
- Warp Yes
Cloud agents review other people's pull requests and comment inline, via GitHub Actions or the GitHub App; the in-app review panel is the inverse, a human reviewing the agent.
Source retrieved 2026-09-03
- Zed Qualified
Review is aimed at the agent's own diff, accepted or rejected hunk by hunk in a multibuffer; nothing in the docs describes reviewing a pull request another person wrote.
Source retrieved 2026-09-29
- Zencoder Yes
Review is a separate workflow step that can be assigned a different model than the one that wrote the code, and agents can review incoming pull requests.
Source retrieved 2026-09-09
- zot Qualified
Structured review is not in the binary; it arrives as the vendor's own opt-in zot-review extension, which maps the repository and records findings rather than commenting on a pull-request diff.
Source retrieved 2026-09-28
- ZTABS Qualified
Code review appears as automation they build for clients using AutoGen multi-agent review crews, not as a review service you buy for an existing diff; the review capability is the delivered system.
Source retrieved 2026-09-25
The population
145 listings in this index are Published. This is the population as of 2026-10-05. 145 of the 145 published listings in this index carry a settled answer for “Reviews code”. That row asks: Does it review a diff someone else wrote? Every listing in the index is settled on this row, so nothing is left out.
Findings
-
26 of the 145 settled listings answer “Yes” for “Reviews code”. That is 18% of the settled set.
-
26 of the 145 settled listings answer “Qualified” for “Reviews code”. That is 18% of the settled set.
-
10 of the 145 settled listings answer “No” for “Reviews code”. That is 7% of the settled set.
-
76 of the 145 settled listings answer “Does not apply” for “Reviews code”. That is 52% of the settled set.
-
7 of the 145 settled listings answer “Not established” for “Reviews code”. That is 5% of the settled set.
1 of those yes answers is Codex CLI, which still answers yes for “Reviews code”. Its listing carries the stored answer and links to the source recorded for it. This is one worked example, not an independent audit of every source in the census.
What we counted, and how
Each figure above is a count over the “Reviews code” row of the listing datasheet, taken from the same stored answer the listing page renders. The denominator is the 145 listings whose answer is settled, meaning one of yes, qualified, no, does not apply, not established. On this row that is the whole index, because every listing has a recognised stored answer. Every number here is stored with the read-only query that reproduces it and re-run every sixty seconds against the live corpus, so a figure that stops reproducing surfaces as drift rather than as a stale sentence nobody notices. Our full method covers how a datasheet row is settled in the first place.
Limitations
This counts stored datasheet answers, not independently tested capabilities. A sourced answer can record a vendor statement or our reading of published evidence; this census does not re-fetch those sources. “Not established” means we have not established an answer. That can reflect vendor nondisclosure, blocked evidence, or unfinished research, not a no. An absent or unrecognised answer is excluded rather than treated as a researched finding. The figures are restated when the stored corpus changes; the date above is the count used for this published version, not a new verification of the vendors.
Get the next report
New agents rankings and fresh data reports. One short email, one-click unsubscribe.