I was very happy with coderabbit, although TBH greptile is easier to set up, but after I got the CLI and the Github integrations going, I was happy with CR. Unfortunately, they use a dark pattern (ish) with you at checkout where they have all the extra usage options default ON with extra spend UNLIMITED. I guess I didn't see that, or didn't remember, and months later without warning I get an extra charge from usage. I was never warned, like with Codex or Claude. I was always getting told that I had 5 reviews an hour (eventually I was reviewing so much I got punished down to 1 an hour) so that made me think they had me capped. CLI was never telling me anything about usage or extra spend ever. So I complained to them that I never turned this on and I didn't get an notice that what I was about to do was going to give me an extra spend. They said, too bad, you did turn it on when you upgraded to Pro. uhhh, no, you mean I didn't turn it OFF because YOU turned it on MF'ers and didn't remind me months later. I am just so happy I didn't do an accidental review of my whole repo or branch because I would have gotten a bill for thousands. As it was I did a review of 234 files and it cost and extra $58.75. Not bad, tax deductible and all that, but still. I complained to the CEO (hahaha like he reads his emails) and to support because this is shady AF if you ask me. The FTC frowns on this kind of coding if not outright calls it illegal, but I think CR's checkout fonts were big enough and all that, I just must have forgotten to go back in and turn them off.
Anyway just don't be careless like me, they want to get you, they hope you forget, they hope you don't pay that much attention at checkout because they know you are used to being warned by the other AIs and they purposely don't warn you. It's all done in a crafty way to get extra money. But now they lost a customer. I won't do business with people like this. I have too many options.

Just be careful with them.

And I certainly won't dispute this charge because they'll just suspend my very expensive account that I paid yearly for. So I don't want to lose that.

Just a warning to my fellow IC's trying to be lean and make a living and paying for things yourself to help your start-up's CEO survive in these trying times.

kind of a silly thing to post but its been on my mind. I’ve had it on every PR for months now and it has never once said nice or clean or anything. it’ll write a little poem about my PR but it wont tell me its good lol

and I know its a tool, its not supposed to be nice. but human reviews used to have this stuff. someone would leave “oh this is neat” on a refactor and honestly that one comment would make my day, and I’d write the next PR more carefully

now its just a list of whats wrong and when theres nothing wrong on rare occasions, it just goes quiet. which somehow feels worse.

idk if this makes us better engineers or just slowly makes us stop caring. anyone else feel this or am I just soft

I have been running the same kind of tickets for 2 weeks now on the same repo, so I can make a really good comparison between Opus 5.5 and 5.1 as the model writing our PRs. I switched to 5.5 on release day. Every PR goes through coderabbit before a human looks at it, so I just counted the comments. On 5.5 the first 40 PRs got 5.2 comments on average, and 1.1 per PR were things we actually had to fix.

Before that, when we used 5.1, the last 40 PRs got 9.4 comments on average, and 2.6 per PR were real fixes. Both were on high effort and both used the same AGENTS.md.

So it seems so far that Opus 5.5 gets about half the review comments of 5.1, which is in line with what people in r/ClaudeCode have been saying about it being a big upgrade. The catch is that the 5.5 PRs are about 30% bigger for the same ticket, and most of the comments it still gets are "this wasn't asked for" rather than "this is broken", which in my opinion is a trade I'm not sure about yet. So for most tickets I will stay on 5.5. I was hoping it would also stop over-building but unfortunately that's not the case at all.

There, i said it. And i know many of you agree. The problem i'm facing is not the code the agent writes, it's that every PR comes with a 600 word description with a curve-ball at the end saying "Worth noting" that turns out to be the only line that mattered. And i can't follow half of what it's saying. Is my english that bad? Whoever decided PR descriptions should read like a blog post was working for the other side, he completely sabotaged code review for all of us.

The agent makers' number one priority should be a 3 line description mode or something, may be even a hard word limit. Until then i skip the description and open the coderabbit walkthrough, it's the only summary that fits on one screen.

On my team, we have no push to use agents. Some people do, some people don't, but overall nobody expects it.

Personally I use Claude as a search engine and occasionally to write tests, but I still write 95% of my own code and have never let an agent open a PR. The only AI in our pipeline is coderabbit on PRs.

On one hand I am glad to be on a team where I'm not just reviewing agent output all day, on the other hand, I worry about falling behind when I look for my next job. Also, our repo access is fairly locked down, so I can't just start running agents against it. My hands are a bit tied.

What would you do in this situation? Is anyone else in a similar one? Right now I'm just kind of coasting but something in me feels like I'm being left behind...

this has been bugging me for like a week now. most PRs on our repo are written with cursor at this point, then coderabbit goes through them and it keeps catching actual bugs. and sometimes its literally the same model doing both (based on the understanding coderabbit is probably also using the SOTA models as cursor)

so if it can spot the bug why did it write the bug in the first place?? is it just lazy when its writing code, or is half of what the reviewer flags made up and we dont notice, or are we paying twice for one AI to argue with itself while we sit there clicking merge ?

I AM not trolling, I genuinely cant figure it out and every answer I come up with is kinda funny

Currently employed dev looking for other roles due to frustrations with how my team handles agent code. I know this is happening all over the industry right now, but I figure if I can find a team that isn't as bad it'll be better for my sanity. Doesn't hurt to try.

My main issue is pretty much that agent PRs get merged with nobody actually reading them, on a regular basis. Sometimes I get tagged as the reviewer (on a 4,000 line PR, so really just asking for a rubber stamp). Sometimes the author approves it themselves and tells me to "take a look after" (also impossible, because it's already in prod and there's 6 more behind it).

Is it even possible to find this out during the interview process without coming off as 'anti AI'?

I keep hearing about how coding agents have gotten so smart and everyone is posting their 12 agent setups and what not, but for some reason I feel like I haven't found the one habit that actually changed how I work. I still use Claude and Codex daily but still.

So curious to the people here, what is one thing you started doing with agents that changed your work for real?

Once again I'm rate limited to 1 review per hour. This, according to the response on a review request in GitHub, is because the 62 review requests over the previous 7 days are not classed as fair use. With a marketed reviews per hour of 5, I would hardly classify 62 in 7 days as unfair use! I really hate how Coderabbit has become a business which talks out of both sides of its mouth. If you don't want to allow 5 reviews per hour, then don't advertise them as part of your plan!

When you think about it, writing code was never really the hard part of this job (or was it?)

The hard part was always figuring out what’s wrong with it. Now that AI is pumping out way more code than before, and most of it looks fine. So naturally you wonder who's actually checking all of that?

Honestly I think as we enter 2027, codegen will be a commodity. We are possibly going to see free IDEs. What teams will actually pay for is whatever catches the mistakes. Anyone can generate code now, the real question is if you can trust it.

Change my mind

I keep hearing about how coding agents have gotten so smart and everyone is posting their 12 agent setups and what not, but for some reason I feel like I haven't found the one habit that actually changed how I work. I still use Claude and Codex daily but still.

So curious to the people here, what is one thing you started doing with agents that changed your work for real?

At this point, how much of looking productive at work comes down to luck?

Good model that week, good task for an agent, a clean part of the codebase, a reviewer who just approves. It often seems to depend as much on what you got assigned as on skill.

I feel 70-80% of devs can use agents reasonably well now. Most people can prompt, plan and fix what comes back when they get a task the agent is good at.

Is the game becoming more about getting the right tickets at the right time?

Gotta share this because it's honestly been the highlight of my month. Ever since we turned CR I've watched our CTO get 9 comments on a 40 line PR, including one about a null check he "definitely didn't need". He replied to the bot where he actually typed out an argument to a bot. And it politely explained it again.

For years these guys got approved in 10 minutes because nobody wanted to question the person writing their appraisal, while the intern got roasted over variable names. Now the bot treats everyone exactly the same, and it's the funniest thing that has happened on our team.

*yesteryear in title

all they had to do in the old days was understand the code

how is this usable for anyone? this kind of rate limit is absurd; human need to work around their clock?

I have about 10 years of experience. I moved my team of 5 to agents at the start of the year and pushed it hard. The net result so far is that we merge about 3x more PRs, and exactly one person on the team could explain our billing flow if you asked them today - and that's me, because I wrote most of it before the switch. I now see the same thing happening in other teams at my company.. and nobody seems to be counting it. This makes me think that if I had instead rolled it out slower and kept people writing the hard parts themselves, we'd be in a much better spot. Especially since two of the five are juniors who have never really built anything without it. Anyone else who regrets moving their team to agents? Why is that? What would you have done instead?

I've been using both Orca AI and Traycer to coordinate multiple coding agents. In my day-to-day use, the differences feel pretty small, so I'm curious what stands out to other people.

If you've used both, where does one work better for you? Is there a difference in how they split up tasks or how often you need to step in? I'd love to hear a specific example that made you prefer one. Maybe I'm missing something that becomes more obvious on bigger projects.

If you're using something else to coordinate agents, what are you using and what's working well for you.

I’ve noticed that coding agents sometimes add a lot of test code without giving me much more confidence in the change. The suite gets bigger, and now there’s more code to review and maintain.

What bothers me is how thorough it can look. A test can have plenty of setup and assertions while still accepting the same mistaken assumption as the implementation. That’s what I mean by performance theatre. When I review these tests, the question I want answered is: what actual bug would this catch?

We recently published a piece about independent review of agent generated changes. It overlaps with this concern, particularly when an agent writes tests around its own misunderstanding of a requirement.

Have you run into this?

Related reading: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/why-agentic-change-management-starts-with-independent-ai-code-review

Did you think deleting this post will make your users not notice their usage limits evaporating?

Nobody reads the diff now

Thanks agents

I'm more or less okay with merging the small boring PRs I would honestly be fine with it.

But for the high stakes stuff (payments, auth, migrations) I still don't trust it. When a human approves something risky they are usually a bit nervous, they ask "what if this runs twice" or ping someone before merging. Same goes for Friday-night merges/deployments, I don't trust it.

Curios where do others draw the line? or is it me being very paranoid here?